Case Name: Balbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 195 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 05-70602
Parties: Balbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Balbinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 2, 2006.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Balbinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition.
We review an adverse credibility finding under the substantial evidence standard and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding. Singh's testimony was internally inconsistent with regard to dates and the sequence of events as well as details about his medical treatment. Singh's testimony also differed from supporting affidavits he provided to the Court. These inconsistencies go to the heart of Singh's claim and support the IJ's adverse credibility finding. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004).
In the absence of credible testimony, Singh did not establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Where the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ, we review the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination. See Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.2005).