Case Name: Jasbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 04-72854
Parties: Jasbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. '
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Jasbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72854.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Hector M. Roman, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent. ;
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. '
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jasbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA affirms without opinion, we review the IJ's decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding, see Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Significant internal inconsistencies in Singh's testimony, as well as specific discrepancies between his testimony and his documentary evidence involving his name, the suspect medical reports he submitted, and his family's place of residence, support the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See id. at 993-95. Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Id.
Singh's CAT claim also fails because he has not shown that it is "more likely than not" that he will be tortured if returned to India. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); see also id. at 993.
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.