Case Name: Gurbinder Singh PAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-15
Citations: 212 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 05-72344
Parties: Gurbinder Singh PAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Gurbinder Singh PAMAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 15, 2006.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Keith T. Tashima, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, 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
Gurbinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of 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 adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding based on a demeanor finding that petitioner was frequently nonresponsive when asked to explain inconsistencies and an inconsistency regarding petitioner's first detention. See id. at 1043-45.
Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is 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).
Because petitioner's CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to support this claim, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.
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.