                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 2 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JARNAIL SINGH,                                  No.    14-73657

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A088-544-325

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Jarnail 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and several affidavits in

the record. See id. (inconsistency between testimony and other record evidence is

an appropriate factor to consider in a credibility determination). The agency did not

err in its assessment of the affidavits which were re-submitted with alterations. 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). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, 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 the

agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence in the

record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in India. See id.

at 1156-57.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


                                          2                                      14-73657
