Case Name: Bachittar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 131 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 04-71716; Agency No. A76-724-194
Parties: Bachittar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Bachittar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71716.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Catherine Malinin Dunn, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY 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).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bachittar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Singh challenges the IJ's adverse credibility determination. Because the IJ offered a specific, cogent reason for questioning Singh's credibility, and because Singh has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion to the contrary, substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Singh's asylum claim fails. See id.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also faded to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1156-57.
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.