Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jaib Singh RAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Jaib Singh Ray, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-72653, 07-74485.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011.
    Filed May 23, 2011.
    
      Kristin N. Holmstrom, Esquire, D. Douglas Metcalf, Esquire, Lewis and Roca LLP, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Nevada, Reno, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaib Singh Ray, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum or withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. The BIA found implausible Ray’s testimony that he was the only person arrested at a large rally. This finding is supported in the record, particularly when country conditions reports did not indicate widespread arrests of low-level activists. Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir.2005); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1999); Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). Because the record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s adverse credibility finding, Ray has not shown that he is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal.

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