N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SUKHW INDER

SINGH, AKA Sukh Sinc h, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71139 Age n c y No. A094-023-888 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Sukhwinde r Singh, a

native and c itiz e n

of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a p ply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nations c re a te d

by the REAL ID Ac t. S

hre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e dism iss in pa rt a n d de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Singh’ s c la im that the a ge nc y e rre d in a dm i tting his sworn a irport sta

te m e nt to there c ord, a s he did not e xha u st this c la im

be fore the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc r oft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination ba se d on Singh’ s prior dishone sty unde r oath. S

e e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048 (a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination wa s re a sona ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um s ta nc e s ) ; se e also Singh v. Holde r , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ An a sy l um

a pplic a nt who lie s to im

m igration a

uthoritie s c a s ts doubt on his c re d ibility

and the re s t of his story .” ). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Singh la c ke d a

n e xc usa ble justific ation for his fa lse sta te m e nts re ga rding his fa

m ily ’ s pre se nc e and a c tivitie s in the U.S. be c a use he did not m ake the s tat e m e nts whilefle e ing pe rse c ution. Se e Singh , 643 F.3d a t 1181 (upholding a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding ba se d on pe titione r’ s lie s to im m igrat ion a uthoritie s tha

t we re “ c om

ple te ly unre late d to e sc a

ping im m e diate da

nge r or 1 3 - 7 1 1 3 9 2ga ining e ntry into theUnite d

State s” ); c

f . Ak i nmadev . IN

S , 196 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th C ir.1999) (“ a ge n

uine re fuge e e sc a

ping pe rse c ution m ay

lie a bout his c itiz e nship to im

m igration offic ia ls in orde r to fle e his pla c e of pe rse c ution or se c ure e ntry

into the U n ite d State s” ). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to Singh’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Singh’ s C AT c la im be c a use it wa s ba se d on the sa m e sta te m e nts the IJ found not c re dible , a nd the re c o rd doe s not othe rwise c om pe l the finding tha

t it is more like l y tha

n not he would be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to India . Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048-49. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 1 1 3 9 3