Case Name: Gurpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 117 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 03-73765; Agency No. A79-617-885
Parties: Gurpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 598–600

Head Matter:
Gurpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73765.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Joshua E. Braunstein, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion, we review the IJ's decision as the final agency determination. See Falcon Carache v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Singh presented inconsistent evidence about the events leading up to his departure from India. See id. (indicating that inconsistencies about events leading up to and surrounding a refugee's departure from the country of persecution can go to the heart of an asylum claim). Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Rivera-Moreno v. INS, 213 F.3d 481, 487 (9th Cir.2000).
We do not review the denial of Singh's Convention Against Torture claim because he did not mention the claim in his opening brief. 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.