FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8645211
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Singh v. Mukasey

No. 8645211 · Decided November 20, 2007
No. 8645211 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 20, 2007
Citation
No. 8645211
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Harmandip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the Id’s and BIA’s decisions unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of asylum based on an adverse credibility determination. The BIA and IJ identified “specific, cogent reasons” that “go to the heart of petitioner’s claim.” Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Singh submitted a fraudulent driver’s license with his asylum application, and failed to otherwise credibly establish his identity. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (an applicant’s eligibility for asylum depends on the credible establishment of his identity). Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 1156 . Singh’s claim that the IJ failed to independently consider his CAT claim is without merit because the IJ did in fact give the claim individual consideration. Because Singh’s claim under the CAT is based on the same testimony that the IJ and BIA found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that he could claim the IJ and BIA should have considered in making the CAT determination, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157 . Singh failed to show that any translation errors at the merits hearing prejudiced his case, such that the outcome of the proceedings may have been affected. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Harmandip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withh
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Harmandip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withh
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Singh v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 20, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8645211 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →