Manpreet Singh Sekhon v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANPREET SINGH SEKHON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73782
Agency No. A097-866-522
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 19, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Manpreet Singh Sekhon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Petitioner challenges the adverse credibility determination. The standards
governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act of 2005
apply. See Pub. L. No. 109–13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231; see also Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s decision affirming an
adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Zi Lin Chen v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s
determination that Sekhon is not eligible for protection under CAT. Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048. We deny Sekhon’s petition.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s credibility ruling for several reasons. In support
of his application for asylum, Sekhon submitted letters from a doctor describing
treatment he allegedly received after being beaten by police. But the letters were
dated before events described in the letters took place. The BIA also affirmed the
IJ’s credibility finding on the basis of inconsistencies between Sekhon’s testimony
and his sister’s testimony concerning the kidnaping of their father, inconsistencies
between Sekhon’s testimony and his ex-fiance’s testimony, and the IJ’s concerns
with Sekhon’s and his sister’s demeanor. Sekhon failed to provide a satisfactory
explanation for these inconsistences. See id. at 1044. Substantial evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

3
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040–44
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s
“totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, Sekhon’s
asylum claim fails. Because Sekhon did not establish eligibility for asylum, it
follows that he failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject Sekhon’s contention that the BIA’s review of his CAT claim was
insufficient. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency
“does not have to write an exegesis on every contention” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). Because Sekhon’s CAT claim is based on the same
statements found not credible, and nothing in the record compels the finding that it
is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT
claim also fails. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1148–49.
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --