Case Name: Lakhvir 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: 2012-03-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 08-74772
Parties: Lakhvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
Lakhvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 2, 2012.
Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Sunah Lee, Oil, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lakhvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Singh's CAT claim because it is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57. In addition, the record belies Singh's contention that the agency disregarded his supporting evidence. We note that the IJ did not admit Exhibit H into the record, and Singh did not challenge that decision. Accordingly, Singh's CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.