                                                                            FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 15 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


GURVINDER SINGH,                                 No. 13-73254

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A087-516-108

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted December 9, 2015**

Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Gurvinder 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

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction


          *
             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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Singh’s vague and inconsistent testimony regarding what he did after the

alleged attack in May 2008. See id. at 1046-47 (inconsistency regarding

underlying events supported adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID

Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The agency was not compelled to

accept Singh’s explanation for the inconsistency. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649

F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency’s

analysis was deficient. 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 CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony

found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is

more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-67.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                     13-73254
