Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurmail Singh UPPAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70461. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 25, 2004.
    
      Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurmail Singh Uppal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ per curiam order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by Uppal’s vague understanding of the factions of the All India Sikh Student Federation (“AISSF”) and his lack of awareness that leaders of the AISSF were arrested in February 10, 1992, the same date he claims to have been arrested for political activity.

Because we uphold the determination that Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, we also uphold the denial of his application for withholding of removal. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.