George v. Holder ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 28 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SURINDER KAUR PATTI,                              No. 07-71404
    Petitioner,                         Agency No. A099-339-834
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Surinder Kaur Patti, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s
    (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    *
    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).
    KAD/Research                                1
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
    under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey,
    
    528 F.3d 1172
    , 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
    because Patti’s testimony was inconsistent with her documentary evidence
    concerning the events following her release from police detention and leading up to
    her departure from India, see Chebchoub v. INS, 
    257 F.3d 1038
    , 1043 (9th Cir.
    2001), and Patti did not persuasively explain these inconsistencies, see Don v.
    Gonzales, 
    476 F.3d 738
    , 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible
    testimony, Patti’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
    Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
    Because Patti’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
    credible, and Patti points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not she
    would be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim fails. See 
    id. at 1156-57.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    KAD/Research                              2                                    07-71404
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-71404

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher

Filed Date: 12/28/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024