Case Name: Harpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 218 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 05-73011
Parties: Harpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Harpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Harpal Singh, Union City, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Harpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Singh contends that the IJ erred by finding that his testimony was not credible. Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Singh's testimony was credible. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004). We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision. See id.
Since Singh failed to meet his burden for asylum, he necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).
Singh waived any challenge to the denial of CAT relief by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.