Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0770-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hardeep KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72744.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2014.
    
    Filed May 21, 2014.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Todd J. Cochran, OIL, Stefanie A. Svo-ren, 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: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hardeep Kumar petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

The BIA dismissed the appeal by upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on Petitioner’s demeanor; the inconsistent, unresponsive, and implausible nature of his testimony; and lack of corroborating evidence. These findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1045-48 (9th Cir.2010). Because Petitioner did not testify credibly, he did not satisfy his burden to establish that he was persecuted in the past or faced a threat of persecution if returned to India. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.2011). Petitioner therefore also did not satisfy the higher burden to establish a right to withholding of removal. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2014). Because Petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony and evidence found to lack credibility, and because no other evidence in the record compels the finding that he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

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