Rakesh Saroy v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAKESH SINGH SAROY, No. 09-71689
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-592-170
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rakesh Singh Saroy, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Saroy’s testimony and asylum application
regarding Saroy’s participation in political activities, as well as internal
inconsistencies in his testimony regarding when he changed his name from Rakesh
Kumar to Rakesh Singh. See id. at 1043; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003) (credible establishment of applicant’s identity is a key element of
the asylum claim). The IJ reasonably rejected his explanations for the
inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In
the absence of credible testimony, Saroy’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Saroy’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the agency should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71689