From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 21, 2004
103 F. App'x 322 (9th Cir. 2004)

Opinion

Submitted July 12, 2004.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, William M. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.


On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A75-302-200.

Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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.

Rupinder Singh ("Singh"), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision. Singh's testimony was not credible because it was inconsistent, unresponsive, and lacked specificity. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (9th Cir.1999). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based on Singh's failure to identify himself. See Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1152-53; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding where the IJ's "credibility findings went to key elements of the asylum application, including identity...."). Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Singh v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 21, 2004
103 F. App'x 322 (9th Cir. 2004)
Case details for

Singh v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:Rupinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 21, 2004

Citations

103 F. App'x 322 (9th Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

Singh v. Garland

The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision in a summary order, and we held that substantial evidence supported the…