From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gill v. Keisler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2007
252 F. App'x 799 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 04-73511.

Argued and Submitted October 19, 2007.

Filed October 29, 2007.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Joseph J. Siguenza, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., August E. Flentje, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A79-565-880.

Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.

The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Jasmeet Singh Gill petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination and the consequent denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Because Gill's CAT claim rests on the same testimony rejected by the IJ as not credible, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION DENIED.


Summaries of

Gill v. Keisler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2007
252 F. App'x 799 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Gill v. Keisler

Case Details

Full title:Jasmeet Singh GILL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2007

Citations

252 F. App'x 799 (9th Cir. 2007)