Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurmit Singh JANJUA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70433.
    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, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Margaret J. Perry, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurmit Singh Janjua, a native citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) streamlined affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ concluded that, although Janjua’s testimony concerning alleged events was detailed and consistent, his testimony was not credible because he offered facially unreliable documents concerning central elements of his claim. Because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, we deny the petition for review. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Janjua’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.