Case ID: f-appx_330/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Inderjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2009 .
    Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
    Inderjit Kaur, Fresh Meadows, NY, pro se.
    Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esquire, Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Mark Lenard Gross, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, Nancy F. Langworthy, Esquire, OIL, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Inderjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the agency’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Kaur presented insufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof for establishing relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (placing the burden of proof on the applicant); see also Sidhu, 220 F.3d at 1090 (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application”).

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