Case ID: f-appx_611/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sanjeev KUMAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2015.
    Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sanjeev Kumar and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction 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 its implausibility finding, as well as the inconsistencies between petitioners’ testimonies regarding the number of phone call threats they received and the location of Kumar’s wife when someone threw a rock through a window at their home. See id. át 1044 (under the REAL ID Act, the agency may base an adverse credibility finding on plausibility, inconsistency, or any other relevant factor in considering the totality of circumstances); see also Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007) (substantial evidence supported the agency’s implausibility finding). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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