Case Name: Jasmeet Singh GILL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-29
Citations: 252 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 04-73511
Parties: Jasmeet Singh GILL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
Jasmeet Singh GILL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73511.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 2007.
Filed Oct. 29, 2007.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Joseph J. Siguenza, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., August E. Flentje, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jasmeet Singh Gill petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination and the consequent denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Razor v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2005). Because Gill's CAT claim rests on the same testimony rejected by the IJ as not credible, his CAT claim also fails. See Faraii v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.