From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 22, 2006
180 F. App'x 754 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted May 15, 2006.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Hilari Allred, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark L. Gross, Esq., Lisa W. Edwards, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.


On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A79-282-303.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Amolak Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding an Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility finding because misrepresentations Singh made to the asylum office regarding his appearance as a Keshdari Sikh were not minor and go to the heart of his claim. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Singh cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, he has failed to show that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Singh has waived his claim for protection under CAT by failing to raise any arguments in his opening brief challenging the denial of this claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Singh v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 22, 2006
180 F. App'x 754 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

Singh v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Amolak SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 22, 2006

Citations

180 F. App'x 754 (9th Cir. 2006)