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 Sukhwinde r M ulta

n i, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72011 Age n c y No. A088-517-600 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc 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 of re m o va l a ffirm ing the Im m i gra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of Singh’ s a pplic a tions for a s y l um , withholding



# FIL E D APR 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s a d

ve rse c re dibility

finding for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a

pply ing the sta nda rds c re a te d by

the REAL ID Ac t. Shre stha v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2010). W he re , a s he re , the B IA re vie w e d the IJ’ s de c ision for c le ar e rror, we “ l ook to theIJ’ s ora l de c ision a s a guide to wha

t la y be hind the B IA’ s c onc lusion.”Te kle v. M uka se y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ) (“ [A] dm inistra tive findings of fa c t

are c onc lusive unle ss a

ny re a s ona ble a djudic a tor would bec o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” ). The IJ a sse sse d the “ t ota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s” and provide d “ spe c ific and c oge nt” re a s ons, whic h the B IA a dopte d. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a t 1043–44. Singh’ s te stim ony tha t he wa s born on M ay

8, 1980 is inc onsiste nt with the a g e liste d on his India n drive r’ s lic e n s e , the a ge liste d on his e le c t ion c ard, the date of birth liste d on his sc hool e xam ination c e rtific a te , an d the date of birth Singh ga ve to the a sy lum offic e r who inte rvie we d him . In a ddition, Singh’ s te stim ony a s to his plac e of birth is inc onsiste nt with the tra nsla te d birth c e rtific a te he provide d, whic h sa y s 2that

he wa s born in a

diffe re nt town. The se are not trivia l inc onsiste n c ie s. Se e id. a t 1044. Ra t

he r, the y c a s t doubt upon Singh’ s ide ntity . Se e Ka loum a v. Gonz a le s, 512 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ Part of [the a p plic an t’ s] c a s e . . . m

u st be satisfa c tory

proof of his re fuge e sta

tus in whic h ide ntity

ope ra te s a s an e le m e nt.” ). The IJ a n d B IA a ppropria te ly c onside re d Singh’ s e xpla n at ions for the inc o nsiste nc i e s, se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a t 1044, a nd the e xpla

nations do not c om pe l a c ontra ry c onc lusion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ). B e c a u se the inc o nsiste nc i e s disc usse d a bove are suffic ie nt to support the a dve rse c re d ibility finding, we ne e d not c o n side r whe the r the B IA e rre d in c onside ring Singh’ s fa ilure to provide his pa ssport. Se e W ang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th C i r. 2003). Singh’ s a s y lum a

nd withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa i l in the a bse nc e of c re d ible t e s tim ony . Se e Farah v. Ashc roft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). The C AT c la im

a lso fa ils be c a

use it is ba se d on the sam e te stim ony found not c re d ible , and Singh did not ide n tify any othe r e v ide nc e tha

t shows it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d if re turne d to India . Se e id. a t 1156–57.

The pe tition is DE NIE D.

3