Charanjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Charanjeet 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on lack of detail as to the motivation for Singh's political activities, the basic structure of Singh's political party, and the role of Singh's political opponent in the 1984 riots. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Singh's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Singh did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner's documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, 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).
Singh's contentions that the agency violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims fail as unsupported by the record. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Singh's CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.