Case Name: Meena KUMARI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 228 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 05-70719
Parties: Meena KUMARI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Meena KUMARI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70719.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 19, 2007.
Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Matthew Collete, Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Robert S. Greenspan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Meena Kumari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Because aspects of Kumari's testimony gave the BIA cause to question her credibility, the BIA did not err by resting its adverse credibility determination in part on Kumari's failure to corroborate her testimony with readily available evidence. See id. at 1044-45.
Because Kumari failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Kumari's claim under the CAT is based on the same evidence that the BIA found not credible, and she identifies no other evidence to support this claim, it also fails. See id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.