Case Name: Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-20
Citations: 143 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 03-72272
Parties: Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, MCKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 889–890

Head Matter:
Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72272.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.
Decided Sept. 20, 2005.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald-E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, MCKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which affirmed an immigration judge's ("IJ)" denial of Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure.
We review for substantial evidence the BIA's finding that Petitioner lacked credibility, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and hold that there is substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding here. Among other things, documents proved that Petitioner was arrested in the United States at the time he claimed to have been in India suffering persecution. When confronted by documents, Petitioner attempted to explain the discrepancy by asserting that the persecution had actually occurred the year before the date printed on his asylum application. The IJ was entitled to discredit Petitioner's explanation because this new date preceded the events that allegedly motivated the persecution.
Insofar as Petitioner asks us to review the denial of his request for voluntary departure, we lack jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f).
PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.