Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sikander SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70233.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Jan. 8, 2004.
    Madan Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the correct respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sikander Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ streamlined affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation based on an adverse credibility finding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the record demonstrates that Singh’s testimony about his membership and activities in the All India Sikh Student Federation lack enough specificity to be believed. See id. at 1153.

Because Singh does not satisfy the standard for asylum, he necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Mejia Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1997).

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.