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

SINGH B ILLING, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70762 Age n c y No. A075-307-053 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 Ja

n u ary 7, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E a

nd KOZINSKI, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd W H ALEY, * ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Ja swinde r Singh B illing, 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 ls’ (B oa

rd) orde r dismissing his a ppe a l from

an 

# FIL ED JAN 12 2016 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt H. W

ha l e y , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.im

m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision de ny ing his c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. In this pre -R EAL ID Ac t

c a se , the B oa

rd m ust ide ntify

a “ spe c i fic , c o ge nt re a s on” supporting its a

dve rse c re d ibility

finding. C

h e b c houb v . IN

S , 257 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th C ir. 2001). At le a st one of the re a sons tha t ga ve rise to the a dve rse c re d ibility

finding m

ust “ go to thehe art of [the ] a sy lum c la im .” Id. at 1043 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e id. at 1042. B illing’ s te stim ony wa s inte rna lly inc onsiste nt a nd c onflic te d with inform ation provide d by B illing’ s fathe r. The B oa rd re a sona

bly de te rm i ne d tha

t B illing ha d not c re dibly

e sta blishe d e sse ntia l fa c ts re lat ing to his arre sts a nd the e ve nts le a ding up to his de pa rture from

India , a nd we m ay not re ve rse the B oa

rd’ s de c ision unle ss “ any

re a sona ble a djudic ator would be c om pe lle d to c onc lude to the c o ntra ry .” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ). The e ve nts le a ding up to B illing’ s de pa rture from

India are at the he art of his c la i m for a sy lum . In the a bse nc e of c re d i ble te stim ony , B i lling’ s c la im s for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003).

1 2 - 7 0 7 6 2 2B illing’ s C AT c la i m is ba se d on his own te stim ony and c ountry ba c kground e vide nc e . The B oa

rd de te rm ine d tha

t B illing’ s c o untry

ba c k ground e vide nc e did not indepe nde n tly

support his c la im

for C AT re lie f, and B illing doe s not c o nte st that de te rm ination on a

ppe a l. The only

re m a i ning e vide nc e in support of B illing’ s C AT c la i m

is te s tim ony

tha t wa s found to benot c re dible . Thus, theB oa rd’ s re je c tion of his C AT c la im

wa s supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide n c e . Se e Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 0 7 6 2 3