Case Name: Jagdish SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-20
Citations: 108 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 03-71047
Parties: Jagdish SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Jagdish SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71047.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
Earle A. Sylva, Esq., Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep S. Rai, Earle A. Sylva, Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai & Assoc., San Francisco, 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, Douglas E. Ginsburg, John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney Generad, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jagdish Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") opinion denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(l). We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Singh was not credible because his testimony regarding when his family was harassed and arrested, and the details of his own arrests was internally inconsistent, and conflicted with the affidavits he submitted. See id. at 1151-52.
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.