NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TARANJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70232

Agency No. A079

- 090

- 480

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 23, 2017 **

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges

. Taranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 70232

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse

credibility determinat ions created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590

F.3d 1034 , 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). W e dismiss in part and deny in part the

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh established any

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.

See 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj

- Culpatan v. Holder , 612 F.3 d 10 88, 1091

- 92
(9th Cir. 2010)

. We reject Singh ’s contention that the agency ’ s analysis violated

his right to due process. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error to prevail on due process challenge). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

T he IJ mad e an adverse credibility det ermination

. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determina tion based on inconsistenc ies
between Singh’s application, testimony, and record evidence regarding Singh ’s

membership in a political party and the agency’s related negative inference arising
from Singh’s failure to address the inconsistency in a continued hearing

. See

Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048 ( adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances)

. Singh ’s explanations do not compel a contrary

result. See Lata , 204 F.3d at 1245 . In the absence of credible t estimony, in this

case, Singh ’s withholding of removal claim fail s

. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d3 15

- 70232

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

. In light of our conclusion regarding credibility, we do not reach the BIA’s

additional grounds for denying relief.

Singh ’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence that compels

the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if return ed to India

. See id . at 1156

- 57

. Finally, w e do not address Singh’s contenti ons regarding issues the BIA did

not rely on in denying relief. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829
(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation and internal q uotation mark s
omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part

.