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

e sponde nt . No. 13-72157 Age n c y No. A096-044-969 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

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Dha na nja y Kum ar M e hta , a

native and c itiz e n

of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED N OV 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t, Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, C olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C i r. 2000). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

found M e hta

not c re d ible ba se d on m

ultipleinc onsiste nc ie s in the re c ord, inc luding signific ant inc onsiste nc i e s re ga rding whe the r he wa s a m e m b e r of R anvir Se na . Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion unde r the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s. Se eShre

s tha , 590 F.3d at 1048. Thea ge n c y re a sona bly re j e c te d M e hta ’ s e xpla

n ations for the inc o nsiste nc i e s. Se e Zamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re je c t M e hta ’ s c onte ntion tha t he wa s ine ffe c tive l y a ssiste d by prior c ounse l. Se e Re y e s v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th C ir. 2004) (re quiring c o m p lia nc e with Matte r of Lozada whe re a lle ge d

ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l wa s not obvious and undispute d on thefa c e o f the re c ord). In the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , M e h ta ’ s a sy lum an d

withholding of rem ova l c la im s fa i l. Se eFarah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003).

2 1 3 - 7 2 1 5 7M e hta ’ s C AT c la i m a lso fa ils be c a

use it is ba se d on the sam e te stim ony found not c re dible , a

nd he doe s not point to a

ny othe r e vide nc e that shows it is m ore like ly

tha n not hewould betorture d if re t urne d to India . Se eid. at 1156-57. Fina lly , we re

je c t M e hta ’ s c o nte ntions tha t his dueproc e ss rights were viola te d. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror to pre v a i l on a

due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 3 - 7 2 1 5 7