Case ID: f-appx_278/html/0788-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Naresh KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74793.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2008.
    
    Filed May 16, 2008.
    Peter Duong, Alvarez & Duong, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his application for asylum.

The immigration judgment found that petitioner had filed a false asylum application. This finding was based on, among other things, the testimony of the preparer of the application, Mr. Basi, the inconsistent testimony of petitioner, the striking similarities in the affidavits supporting petitioner’s application, and the documentary evidence that petitioner provided Mr. Basi with a partially completed and signed asylum application where the reasons for asylum were left blank.

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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