N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM IT KUM AR , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72258 Age n c y No. A089-318-644 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, FISHER , a

nd TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge s. Am it Kum ar, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of his a

p plic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd prote c tion unde r 

# F IL ED F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252(a )(1), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 1. The IJ’ s a d

v e rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation, whic h wa s a ffirm e d by the B IA, is supporte d by

substa n tia l e v ide nc e . B oth the IJ a nd the B IA re a sona

bly c onside re d tha

t Kum ar’ s a sy lum

c la im inc onsiste ntly

c ha nge d ove r tim e from re ligious perse c ution to politic a l pe rse c ution. Se e Valde rrama v . I.N .S. , 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th C ir. 2001) (pe r c uriam ) (substa n tia l e vide nc e supporte d B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding whe n m ate ria l diffe re nc e s e xiste d in pe titione r’ s first two a sy lum

a p plic ations); deLe on-Barrios v . I.N .S. , 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th C ir. 1997) (sim ila

r). In a ddition, the

IJ a nd B IA note d that the tim ing of Kum ar’ s arre sts unde rm ine d his politic a l opinion c la im . Se e Mahli v . I.N .S. , 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th C i r. 2003) (disc re p anc ie s in “ c ritic a l” pa rts of pe titione r’ s story substa ntia lly supporte d a dve rse c re dibility finding). Spe c ific a lly , Kum ar te stifie d that c ha rge s we re file d a ga inst him in 2005 in re ta lia

t ion for his la c k of support in a 2007 e le c tion. W e a lso give de fe re nc e to the IJ’ s finding tha t Kum a r’ s te stim ony

wa s c onfusing, c ontra dic tory , a n d va gue in re ga

rds to the c irc um sta

nc e s surrounding his politic a l opinion c la im . Se e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ The de fe re nc e tha t the R EAL ID Ac t re q

uire s m ake s se nse be c a

u se IJs a re 2in the be st position to a sse ss de m e anor a nd othe r c re dibility

c ue s tha t we c annot re a d ily a c c e ss on re vie w.” ). Kum ar te stifie d inc onsiste ntly a bout his involve

m e nt in the C o ngre ss Pa

rty , a n d sta te d tha t “ it just didn’ t

strike [him ] ” to m e ntion anything in his a sy lum

a p plic ations a

bout his politic a l pa

rty or the e le c t ion tha

t le d to his a lle ge d pe rse c ution. Se e K in v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1056–57 (9th C ir. 2010) (substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporte d a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation whe re pe titione rs om i tte d a

politic a l de m onstra

tion from a sy lum a pplic ation); se e also Husy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1182–83 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t om i ssion of politic a l a c tivism wa s not a “ m e re . . . de ta il[] ” whe n it we n t to the he art of pe titione r’ s c la im ) (a lte ra tions in origina l) (quoting Singh v . Gonzale s , 403 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th C ir. 2005)). Fina lly , the c orroborating e vide nc e tha t Kum ar subm itte d furthe r unde rm i ne s his c re dibility . To illustra te , the doc um e nts Kum ar subm itte d surrounding his India n a rre sts do not spe ll his na

m e c orre c tly , a

nd the a ffidav its submitte d by his fa m ily m e m b e rs m ake a

bsolute ly no m e n tion of politic a l forc e s at work. On the tota l ity

of this re c ord, we c annot c onc lude tha t Kum ar’ s sta

te m e nts and te stim ony

c om p e l the c onc lusion tha

t he wa s c re dible . In the a bse nc e of c re d ible t e s tim ony , the a ge nc y prope rly de nie d Kum ar’ s a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c l a im s. Se e J

in v . Holde r , 748 F.3d 959, 967 (9th C ir. 2014).

32. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t Kum ar fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he wa s subje c t to gove rnm e n t -sponsore d pe rse c ution or tha t it would beunre a s ona

ble for him

to re loc ate within India

to a void future ha

rm . Se e K aise r v . Ashc r oft , 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Whe re , a s he re , the a pplic ant ha s not e sta

blishe d pa st pe rse c ution, thea pplic ant be ars the burde n of e sta blishing tha

t it would be

e ithe r unsa fe or unre a sona ble for him

to re loc ate , unle ss the pe rse c ution is by a gove rnm e nt or is gove rnm e n t-sponsore d.” ). 3. The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc l usion tha

t “ it is m o re like ly

tha n not” Kum ar will be torture d if he re turns to India . S e e Bromfie ld v . Muk

ase y , 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [Pe t itione r] is e ntitle d to re lie f unde r C AT if he e sta blishe s tha

t he would m ore like ly

tha n not be torture d in [his home c ountry ] .” ). The Pe tition for Re vie wis DE NIE D .

4