NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 

F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We 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.3d 1088, 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.

The IJ made an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies

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 testimony, in this 

case, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 
3 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 returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we do not address Singh’s contentions 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 quotation marks 

omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.