Case Name: Ranjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-21
Citations: 323 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 05-75594
Parties: Ranjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
Ranjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75594.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 21, 2009.
Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Owen P. Martikan, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ranjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's denial on the basis of an adverse credibility finding and will uphold the agency's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination because, viewed in light of all the evidence presented and Singh's explanation for various identity documents, the inconsistencies the IJ identified regarding Singh's identity enhanced his chances of obtaining an immigration benefit and deprived his claim of the requisite "ring of truth." See id. at 1064-68; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that identity is a key element for asylum claims).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.