Case Name: Jasbir Singh MALHOTRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-01
Citations: 111 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 03-61060
Parties: Jasbir Singh MALHOTRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Jasbir Singh MALHOTRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-61060.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 1, 2004.
Thomas Perrill Adams, LAw Office of Thomas P. Adams, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jasbir Singh Malhotra, a native and citizen of India, has filed a petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Malhotra argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in determining that there were discrepancies in the record and erred in denying his application due to a lack of corroborative evidence. Malhotra argues that he has established a clear probability of persecution or torture upon his return to India based on his political activities of writing newspaper articles critical of the Indian government. The IJ found that Malhotra was not a credible witness based on inconsistencies between his written statement, his testimony, and his brother's testimony. The IJ found that due to the inconsistencies, corroborative evidence was necessary and that Malhotra had failed to provide any corroborative evidence to support his claims. The IJ denied his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision. We will not substitute our judgment of Malhotra's credibility for that of the IJ and BIA. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002). Malhotra has not shown that the evidence in the record compels a conclusion contrary to the decision of the IJ and BIA that Malhotra's testimony was not credible particularly in light of his failure to present readily available corroborative evidence to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.2002).
PETITION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.