Case Name: Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 135 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 04-70840
Parties: Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70840.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Randall M. Stone, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of the India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("I J") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding. The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for the determination based on an inconsistency between petitioner's testimony and application regarding his first detention and the submission of fraudulent documents to establish his identity and past persecution. See id. at 1043.
Because petitioner does not challenge the IJ's denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief in his opening brief, the claims are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.