Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0755-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74546.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2009.
    
      Hardeep Singh Rai, Tsz-Hai Huang, Sa-bey M. Abraham, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nairi M. Simonian, Michelle Gorden Lat-our, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel tmanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that it was implausible that Singh would visit the United States on several occasions following his arrest and brutal beating in 1998 and not seek asylum, despite knowing that such relief was available to him. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-19 (9th Cir.2008) (petitioner’s voluntary return to her home country inherently undermined her testimony that she experienced past suffering, and therefore supported an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh has failed to establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.