Case Name: Sarvjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 04-75340
Parties: Sarvjeet 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: 678–679

Head Matter:
Sarvjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75340.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael B. Beckwith, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarvjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ's adverse credibility finding, Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Singh's inconsistent testimony regarding when he was re-baptized, whether anyone at his workplace knew of his arrest, and whether he informed Mr. Jaswal he was leaving India, provides substantial evidence supporting the IJ's adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1067 (holding that inconsistencies deprived petitioner's claim of the requisite "ring of truth"). Without credible testimony, Singh failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1155-57 (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.