Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mukesh KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Mohinder Singh, Law Office of Mohin-der Singh, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.
    Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mukesh Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Kumar’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application. See Cheb-choub v. INS., 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Specifically, Kumar’s testimony included additional incidents which were not included in his asylum application and Kumar failed to adequately explain these differences. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ku-mar failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon return to India. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.