Case Name: Bhupinder SINGH; Champa Saini, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Citations: 67 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 03-1127
Parties: Bhupinder SINGH; Champa Saini, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Bhupinder SINGH; Champa Saini, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-1127.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided July 10, 2003.
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Bhupinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. First, we reject Singh's claim that this case does not satisfy the criteria for use of the Board's summary affirmance procedure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(H) (2003).
Next, we reject Singh's contention that he qualified for asylum and withholding of removal. Singh does not qualify for relief because the IJ made a negative credibility determination that is amply supported by the record and is entitled to deference. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir.2002); Matter of S-A-, Int. Dec. 3433 (BIA2000); Matter of A-S-, 211. & N. Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998).
We also find Singh's assertion that the IJ erred in finding his asylum application frivolous to be meritless. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2000). Finally, we reject Singh's assertion that the IJ did not discuss the status of his labor certification and application for adjustment of status. See A.R. 37 n. 2; 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3) (2000).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
Petitioner Champa Saini is Singh's wife and her claim is dependent on his pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2000).