NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANOOP KUMAR,

Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 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 app eal 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 substa ntial 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, s ubstantial 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, s ubs tantial evidence suppo rts the agency’s finding that Kum ar’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 testimon y, in this case, Kumar’s asylum , including his humanitarian asylum claim, and his
withhol ding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).3 12

- 73230

Finally, s ubstantial evidence also s upports 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 t hat 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).
PETITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED.