N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NANDLAL SHIVDASANI, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R

e sponde n t . No. 09-72748 Age n c y No. A096-137-820
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

be r 4, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, FER NANDEZ, a

nd IKUTA, C irc u i t Judge s. Nandla l Shivda sa

ni, a native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ dism issa l of his a p pe a l from

the im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of his a

pplic ation for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l , prote c tion unde r the C onve n tion Aga inst Tortureand, in thea lte rnative , volunta ry de p arture . 

# FIL ED
NOV 13 2013 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).W e re vie wle ga l que stions d e nov o and re vie w fa c tua l findings, inc luding a dve rse
c re d ibility

findings, for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Lope

z-C ardona v . Holde r , 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th C ir. 2011); C haw la v . Holde r , 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th C ir. 2010). A de n ia l of a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, or C AT re lie f is re vie we d for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Sinha v . Holde r , 564 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th C ir. 2009); Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th C i r. 2006). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Shivda sa ni first c ha lle nge s the a ge nc y ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility

finding. The
a ge nc y ’ s finding wa s ba se d on inc onsiste nc ie s in Shivda s ani’ s te stim ony re ga rding whe re he re c e ive d m e dic a l c are a fte r his a lle g e d m istre atm e nt by Ka shm iri polic e
and whe the r he wa s a dm itte d to the hospita l a s a

n outpa tie nt, a s we l l a s inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n his te stim ony and his a rgum e nt be fore the B IA re g arding why a le tte r from

his doc tor doe s not m e ntion tha t he suffe re d

broke n bone s. The se inc o nsiste nc i e s ra ise que stions re ga rding Shivda sa

ni’ s c re dibility . M ore ove r, give n tha t the y be ar on the m e dic a l c are Shivda sa ni re c e ive d for his a lle ge d injurie s a nd thus the

se riousne ss of thoseinjurie s, we hold tha t the y go to “ t he he art of the a sy lum

c la i m .” Singh v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th C ir. 2004); P al v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th C ir. 2000). The se inc onsiste nc ie s are distinguisha

b le from those in c a se s c ite d by

Shivda sa ni, whic h involve d issue s 2ta

nge ntia l to the a lle ge d pe rse c ution, se e Singh v . Ashc roft , 362 F.3d 1164, 1170–71 (9th C ir. 2004); W ang v . Ashc roft , 341 F.3d 1015, 1021–22 (9th C ir. 2003), or we re lim ite d to da te s, se e Zahe di v . IN

S , 222 F.3d 1157, 1166–67 (9th C ir. 2000) ; Shah v . IN

S , 220 F.3d 1062, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2000). Thea ge nc y ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

finding is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Shivda sa ni’ s c h a lle nge s to thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a sy l um and withholding of
re m ova l fa il. Unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t, a n a sy lum a pplic a nt
m ust show tha

t he is una

b le or unwilling to return to his c o untry “ be c a use of pe rse c ution or a we l l-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution.” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(42)(A); se e also id. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution “ m ust be both subje c tive ly

ge nuine an d

obje c tive ly

re a sona ble .” Duarte deGuinac

v . IN S , 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th C ir. 1999); se e also F i she r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba

nc ). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Shivda sa ni’ s te stim o ny

fa ile d to e sta

b lish e ithe r pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Although Shivdasa ni pre se nte d se ve ra l a ffidav its a nd othe r supporting docum e ntation, thea ge nc y re a sona bly de te rm ine d tha

t the se we re insuffic ie nt to m e e t his burde n. Se e J ieC ui v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 (9th C ir. 2013). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Shivda sa

ni

3fa ile d to m e e t the highe r burde n to show e ntitle m e n t to withholding of re

m ova l. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th C ir. 2000). Prote c tion unde r C AT a

pplie s if the pe titione r shows tha t “ it is m o re like ly tha n not tha t he or she would betorture d if re m ove d to thepropose d c ountry of
re m ova l.” 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2), (d)(1); se e also K amalthas v . IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th C ir. 2001). He re , the e vide nc e in support of Shivda sa ni’ s C AT
c la im is the sa m e a s tha t in support of his a s y lum and withholding of re

m ova l
c la im s. As suc h, it is insuffic i e nt. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i nation. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th C ir. 2003). Fina lly , Shivda sa

ni c ha lle nge s the a ge n c y ’ s de nia l of volunta ry de pa rture . The fa c ts unde rly i ng this ruling a re undispute d. W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w it. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D); Ramadan v . Gonzale s , 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th C ir. 2007). An IJ m ay

grant a n a lie n volunta

ry de pa rture only if he ha s a

pa ssport or othe r suffic ie nt tra

ve l doc um e n tation, 8 C .F.R . § 1240.26(b)(3)(i), or “ is m a king dilige n t e fforts to se c ure it,” id. § 1240.26(b)(3)(ii). Shivda sa ni fa ile d to m a

ke
suc h a showing. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4