Case Name: Reena KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-29
Citations: 76 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 02-71758; Agency No. A75-318-164
Parties: Reena KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Reena KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71758.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2003.
Decided Sept. 29, 2003.
Rohit Dharwadkar, Law Offices of Hardeep Singh Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Alison Marie Igoe, Office of Immigration Litigation, Shelley R. Goad, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Reena Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The I J's denial was on the basis of adverse credibility findings, and the BIA affirmed those findings. We must affirm unless the record compels a finding that the applicant was credible and is eligible for immigration benefits. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
The adverse credibility findings are supported by material inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony, including inconsistencies as to the kind of physical abuse to which she was subjected. The IJ and BIA's decisions are supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.