Case Name: Balwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 210 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 05-71863
Parties: Balwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
Balwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71863.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark S. Des Noyer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM *
Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Singh's testimony and application regarding events leading up to his departure from India. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, where the IJ had reason to question Singh's credibility, the IJ's request for corroborating evidence is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1045; see also Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, Singh is not eligible for asylum.
Because Singh fails to establish eligibility for asylum, he also fails to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.