Case Name: Harbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-08
Citations: 257 F. App'x 7
Docket Number: No. 05-74715
Parties: Harbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
Harbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74715.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 8, 2007.
Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Harbinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's ("U") 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, Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Singh's passport entries from October 1990 and Singh's testimony regarding the timing of his persecution and his decision to leave India in November 1990. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
Because Singh failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of CAT relief because Singh did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.