Case Name: Surinderpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 109 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 03-70885
Parties: Surinderpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
Surinderpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70885.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Hardeep Singh Rai, Law Office of Hardeep S. Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., William C. Peachey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Surinderpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, 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. The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for his finding based on inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and his declaration going to the heart of his asylum claim, including his arrests, the length of his detention, and where he fled to after his second arrest. See id. at 1043. Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was 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).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.
PETITION 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.