Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vikas SOOD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 26, 2004.
    Marshall G. Whitehead, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNALAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vikas Sood, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Sood contends that the IJ erred in finding him not credible. We disagree. The IJ found Sood’s testimony implausible and offered specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving him. See id. at 1043. Accordingly, Sood failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477, petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, or continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.