Case Name: Krishan Jiwan KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-24
Citations: 454 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 07-74977
Parties: Krishan Jiwan KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 621–621

Head Matter:
Krishan Jiwan KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74977.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 12, 2011.
Filed Oct. 24, 2011.
Kuldip S. Dhariwal, Esq., Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Krishan Jiwan Kapoor, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's ("I J") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination. The IJ identified specific inconsistencies in Kapoor's testimony and the medical documents he presented that relate to the injuries and incidents of persecution at the heart of his claims. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible evidence, Kapoor has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Kapoor's CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, substantial evidence also supports denial of relief under the CAT. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.