* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THAKUR SINGH; GURCHARAN KAUR, Petitioners,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-74495 Agency Nos. A072-115-383 A070-537-980
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 14, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HUFF, District Judge. ** Thakur Singh and Gurcharan Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of as ylum, withholding of removal, protection 

# FILED
OCT 21 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS-2- under the Convention Against Torture (“ CAT”), and voluntary departure. We deny the petition for review. Because the pa rties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here. I Substantial evidence supports the adve rse credibility determination in this case. The record is replete with testim onial inconsistencies and discrepancies in Petitioners’ application documents that provi de substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Of pa rticular note are the inconsistencies concerning the number and the dates of th e alleged arrests. Petitioners concede that at least some of the inconsistencie s go to the heart of the their claim. See Li v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility ruling will be upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the ‘heart of the asylum claim.’”) (citation omitted). Petitioners contend that these inconsistencies were the result of psychological impairments. There is s upport for this argument in the record. However, both the BIA and the IJ took the psychological evidence into consideration, and substantial evidence s upports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that the impairments were not significant enough to explain the inconsistencies. II-3- The BIA and IJ did not reject Petitioners’ CAT claim solely on an adverse credibility determination, as Petitioners alle ge. The IJ’s decision indicates that he considered Petitioners’ CAT claim separately from their asylum claim by reviewing the evidence on the record to determine whether Petitioners had a wellfounded fear of future persecution. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning in affirming denial of CAT relief. Substantial evidence in the reco rd, notably the relevant country reports, supports this conclusion. III We have jurisdiction to consider the IJ ’s denial of voluntary departure on the basis of lack of good moral character becau se the IJ’s determination was based on non-discretionary aspects of the voluntary departure statute’s moral character requirement. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft , 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the record supports the IJ’s dete rmination that the Petitioners gave false testimony under oath for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure.

PETITION DENIED.