NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAVEEN KUMAR, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72768 

Agency No. A208-193-672 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 4, 2020**

Portland, Oregon

Before: SCHROEDER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Naveen Kumar petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) 

denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. 

1. The BIA affirmed the denial of Kumar’s asylum and withholding of 

* 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

MAY 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

removal claims based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Substantial evidence 

supports the BIA’s determination. 

Kumar provided inconsistent testimony about the identity of the individuals 

who attacked him. In his credible fear interview and written declaration, Kumar 

stated that members of the Badal Party assaulted him on two occasions. He then 

submitted a supplemental statement, along with six affidavits from acquaintances 

in India, alleging that members of the BJP Party had attacked him as well. Yet on 

direct examination at the merits hearing, Kumar discussed only the Badal Party 

when describing the attacks. When confronted about this inconsistency, Kumar 

noted that the two parties work closely together. The IJ and BIA were not required 

to accept this explanation, however, as the record supported an alternative view of 

the evidence—namely, that Kumar had altered his testimony to conform to the 

allegations in the affidavits. 

Kumar also offered inconsistent testimony regarding the Badal Party’s 

attempts to find him. At the merits hearing, Kumar testified that members of the 

Badal Party searched for him multiple times when he was living in India. But his 

written declaration contains no mention of these incidents. Instead, his declaration 

indicates that the Badal Party began looking for him after he left the country. His 

sole explanation for this inconsistency was that he had “made a mistake.” It was 

not unreasonable for the IJ and BIA to reject this explanation as implausible. See
Page 3 of 3

Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016).

Contrary to Kumar’s assertions, these inconsistencies in his testimony were 

not trivial, and the IJ and BIA were entitled to rely on them regardless of whether 

they went “to the heart” of his claims for relief. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 

1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because these 

inconsistencies are sufficient to support the adverse credibility finding, we do not 

address the BIA’s additional reasons for affirming the IJ’s determination. 

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Kumar is 

not eligible for CAT protection. Kumar’s claim for relief is based on the same 

testimony that the BIA deemed not to be credible, and his country conditions 

evidence does not independently establish his eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 

1049. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.