Case Name: Herjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-18
Citations: 84 F. App'x 843
Docket Number: No. 02-74100; Agency No. A75-868-243
Parties: Herjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 843–843

Head Matter:
Herjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74100.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
Hardeep Singh Rai, Earle A Sylva, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, David Dauenheimer, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Herjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review for substantial evidence credibility findings, see He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA based its adverse credibility finding on numerous and substantial inconsistencies in Singh's testimony concerning the dates that he was allegedly tortured, which went to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of Singh's application. See id. at 1045.
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.