Case Name: Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-15
Citations: 171 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 04-73434; Agency No. A95-585-595
Parties: Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73434.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 15, 2006.
George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Balvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between petitioner's application and testimony regarding his first arrest, his political involvement in an August 2001 rally, and his reasons for fleeing India after the 2001 rally. See id. at 1043-45.
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).
Petitioner also fails to establish a CAT claim because he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he was returned to India. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001).
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.