Case Name: Bhupinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-15
Citations: 85 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 03-70228; Agency No. A76-675-313
Parties: Bhupinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
Bhupinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70228.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
Huang Tsz-Hai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Earle A. Sylva, Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bhupinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of Singh's application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's decision. Singh's testimony was contradictory and materially inconsistent with his written declaration concerning, inter alia, the year of his second arrest, the duration of his detention and his father's arrest. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
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.