Amrik Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRIK SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73769
Agency No. A079-287-117
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Amrik Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
deny the petition for review.
Even if Singh’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency
regarding the length of Singh’s first detention, which went to the heart of his claim
of persecution by Indian police. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.
2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial
evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim of persecution, we are bound
to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”). We reject Singh’s contention that
he was not given an opportunity to explain. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,
1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence in the record to
compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of a public official in India. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73769 2

-- 2 of 2 --