Singh
Singh v. Mukasey
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Udham Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under *664 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination based upon inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony, asylum application, and supporting documents regarding the whereabouts of his father following his father’s release from police custody in 1999. The finding goes to the heart of Singh’s asylum claim, which is based upon his fear of persecution by the Indian government on account of the political activities of his father and uncle. See id. at 963 .
We dismiss Singh’s contention that alleged errors in interpretation violated his due process rights, because Singh failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).