Case Name: Hakumat Singh RAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 864
Docket Number: No. 06-73875
Parties: Hakumat Singh RAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 864–866

Head Matter:
Hakumat Singh RAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73875.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
Hardeep Singh Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Angela Ting, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hakumat Singh Rai, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition.
The record does not compel reversal of the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on Rai's lack of knowledge regarding the political party which he supported, see Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004), as well as inconsistencies in Rai's testimony as to the date that he began supporting his political par ty, see Don, 476 F.3d at 741-42. In the absence of credible testimony, Rai's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Rai's CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he returns to India, Rai's CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.