NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANOOP KUMAR, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 12-73230 

13-71412 

Agency No. A079-269-523 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions, Anoop Kumar, a native and citizen of India, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-73230 

Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 12-73230), and of the BIA’s order denying 

his motion to reopen removal proceedings (petition No. 13-71412). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Zamanov v. 

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petitions for review.

As to petition No. 12-73230, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Kumar’s 

testimony and his documentary evidence as to the location of his arrests in India.

See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility 

finding supported where material inconsistencies in testimony went to 

the heart of the claim). Kumar’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. 

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kumar’s corroborative evidence did 

not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 

1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or 

does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony 

can be fatal to his asylum application.”). In the absence of credible testimony, in 

this case, Kumar’s asylum, including his humanitarian asylum claim, and his 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003).
3 12-73230 

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s 

CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the 

record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not 

Kumar would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government of India. See id. at 1156-57.

As to petition No. 13-71412, Kumar does not challenge the BIA’s denial of 

his motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 

waived). 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.