Case Name: Sarabjeet SINGH-BAINS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-12
Citations: 52 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 02-70196; INS No. A73 414 487
Parties: Sarabjeet SINGH-BAINS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABE R, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Sarabjeet SINGH-BAINS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 02-70196.
INS No. [ AXX XXX XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 12, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABE R, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarabjeet Singh-Bains, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.
We review the BIA's and IJ's credibility findings for substantial evidence and must uphold the findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 816-817, 117 L.Ed. 38 (1992); De Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir.1997). The BIA and IJ provided specific, cogent reasons as bases for their adverse credibility findings, noting that Singh-Bains's testimony was hesitant and
materially inconsistent with his application. See Leon-Barrios, 116 F.3d at 393-94; Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir.1994). Thus, we must uphold the BIA's and IJ's adverse credibility determinations because they are supported by substantial evidence. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-53 (9th Cir.1999). Hence, the BIA did not err in determining that Singh-Bains is ineligible for asylum.
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.
. Because Singh-Bains did not meet the requirements for eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).