N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AVINDER

KUM AR , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72077 Age n c y No. A075-684-866
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 ission De fe rre d

Fe brua ry 3, 2015 Subm itte d April 23, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd C L IFTON, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r R avinde r Kum ar, a native and c itiz e n of India , e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on a

fra u dule nt K-1 fia

nc é visa and sought a sy lum . He now se e k s re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c i sions ba rring him from a d justing 

# F IL ED APR 28 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).his sta

t us a nd dismissing his a

p pe a l of the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his
a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C o nve n tion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) prote c tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. First, Kum a

r c onte nds tha

t he m ay a djust his sta

tus ba se d on a re lative pe tition file d by

his U.S. c itiz e n fathe r, notwithsta n ding § 245(d) of the Im m i gration a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t (“ INA” ), whic h ba

rs a K-1 visa holde r from
a djusting his sta

tus on a ny ba s is othe r tha

n m arria ge to the U.S. c itiz e n who pe titione d on his be ha lf. 8 U.S.C . § 1255(d); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 245.1(c )(6) (barring a non-c itiz e n who is “ a dm itte d” on a K-1 fia nc é (e ) visa

from a djusting his sta tus unle ss he m arrie s the sponsoring fia nc é (e )). A K-1 visa

holde r is de fine d a s som e one who e nte rs the U.S. to m arry a sponsoring U.S. c itiz e n within ninety da y s a fte r “ a dm ission.”INA § 101(a )(15)(K), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(15)(K). Kum ar argue s tha

t he is not a

K-1 visa holde r be c a

u se he wa s ne ve r “ a dm i tte d” a s a K-1 visa holde r. He wa s not a dm itte d a s a K-1 visa holde r, he c onte nds, be c a use he wa s proc e d ura lly a d m itte d— he wa s inspe c te d a

nd a uthoriz e d by

an im m igrat ion offic e r to e n te r— but he wa s ne ve r substa

ntive ly a dm itte d be c a

use he wa s not la

wfully privile ge d to e nte r, owing to his fra udule nt K-1 visa
.

-2-Kum ar’ s a bility to a djust his sta

tus, the n , turns on whe the r the te rm s

“ a d m ission”in INA § 101(a)(15)(K) and “ a dm itte d” in 8 C .F.R . § 245.1(c )(6) de note proc e dura lly

re gula r a d m ission or substa

ntive ly la wful a dm i ssion. This is a que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo. Shiv araman v . Ashc roft , 360 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th C ir. 2004). W e c onc lude tha

t Kum ar wa s a dm itte d

on a K-1 visa be c a use INA § 101(a )(15)(K) a

n d 8 C .F.R . § 245.1(c )(6) re fe r to proc e dura lly re gula r a dm ission. This c onc lusion follows dire c tly from our de c ision in Hing Sum v . Holde r , 602 F.3d 1092 (9th C ir. 2010). In tha t c a se , we inte rpre t e d the ge ne ra l sta tutory de finition of “ a dm itte d” an d “ a dm ission”in the INA to re fe r to proc e dura lly
re gula r a dm ission, not substa

ntive l y la wful a dm ission. Id . at 1096. The re is no
re a s on to think tha

t this ge ne ra l de finition, se t forth in INA § 101(a

)(13)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(A), doe s not c ontrol them e a ning of “ a dm ission”in § 101(a )(15)(K) a

n d “ a dm itte d” in § 245.1(c )(6). Those te rm s a re not m odifie d by the t e rm “ la wful,” whic h

ha s be e n re a d to de note substa n tive ly la wful a d m i ssion. Se e , e .g. , Mone t v . IN

S , 791 F.2d 752, 753-54 (9th C ir. 1986); In reK oloamatangi , 23 I& N De c . 548, 551 (B IA 2003). In a ddition, a dopting the proc e dura l re a ding
a dva nc e s the purpose of the a d justm e n t ba

r, whic h is to re duc e fra

ud in fia nc é (e )

3 -3-visa s. The proc e dura l re a ding a lso a c c ords with tra ditiona l notions of e quita ble
e stoppe l. Se e Hing Sum , 602 F.3d a t 1101 (Gra

be r, J., c o nc urring). B e c a use Kum ar wa s a dm itte d on a K-1 visa , he is ba

rre d from a djusting his sta tus ba s e d on his fa

t h e r’ s pe tition. “ Having e njoy e d the be ne fits of” be i ng a K-1 visa holde r, Kum ar “ c annot now she d his skin for the purpose s of se e king be ne fic ia l re lie f.” Id . at 1093 (m a jority opinion). Se c ond, Kum ar c onte nds tha t the a ge nc y

e rre d in de ny ing his a

pplic ations for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T prote c tion on the ba sis of theIJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding. W e re vie w the se de c i sions for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). B e c a use this is a pre -RE AL ID c a se , we m ust uphold the

a ge nc y ’ s a d

ve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination if it “ is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e and goe s to the he art of [Kum ar’ s] c la im of pe rse c ution.” Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2011). W e uphold thea ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding be c a

use it re sts on a

“ spe c ific , c oge nt re a son” tha t goe s to the he a

rt of Kum ar’ s c la im
. Li v . Ashc roft , 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting de Le on-Barrios v . IN S , 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th C i r. 1997)). Kum ar gave inc onsiste nt a nswe rs in his a sy lum a

pplic ation
and he aring te stim ony

a bout thedate s a

nd dura tion of two of his thre e de te ntions. A re a sona ble fa c t finde r c ould c onc lude tha t the se disc re pa

n c i e s a re re l e va nt a nd 4 -4-signific ant. Id . The y are re le va

nt be c a use the y c onc e rn the e xte nt to whic h Kum ar m ay have be e n a

buse d by offic i a ls. And “ [t] h e s e disc re pa nc ie s are signific ant be c a use the y c onc e rn [two] of the fe w inte ra c tions be twe e n [Kum ar] an d the Punja b i polic e .” K

aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th C i r. 2005). The nine -m onth disc re pa

nc y c onc e rning the date of Kum ar’ s third de t e ntion is pa rtic u la rly gla ring. C o ntra

ry to Kum ar’ s c onte n tion, the IJ a nd B IA m e aningfully
c onside re d, a

nd re je c te d, his e xpla

n ation for theinc onsiste nt sta t e m e nts—

t hat he sim ply forgot due to the pa ssa g e of tim e . The re fore , we c onc l ude tha t substa ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding, whic h in turn supports the d e nia l of Kum ar’ s a

pplic a tions for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l. Kum ar argue s tha

t, e ve n if we uphold thea ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding, wec a

nnot sustain the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of his C AT c la im . He c onte nds tha t the IJ re l ie d on the a dve rse c re dibility finding with re spe c t to his a sy l um a pplic a tion to de ny

Kum ar C AT prote c tion, whic h we a d vise d a ga inst in K amalthas v . IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd Taha v . Ashc r oft , 389 F.3d 800, 802 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). It is true tha t the IJ a nd B IA re lie d on the a sy lum -re late d a dve rse c re d ibility to de ny Kum ar C AT prote c tion. B ut this
wa s not e rror be c a

use , unlike in K

amalthas and Taha , the IJ a nd B IA did not re ly only on the a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e K

a malthas , 251 F.3d a

t 1283; Taha , 5 -5-389 F.3d a

t 802. The y

a lso c onside re d the doc um e nta ry e v ide nc e Kum ar pre s e nte d, whic h the y

c orre c tly found fe ll short of the

C AT sta nda rd. Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th C ir. 2006). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

6 -6-