Akwinder Kaur v. Loretta E. Lynch , 667 F. App'x 208 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AKWINDER KAUR, PARAMJIT SINGH, No. 13-72680
and AKASHDEEP SINGH,
Agency Nos. A200-993-760
Petitioners, A200-993-761
A200-993-762
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The stay in these proceedings expired on May 16, 2016. Thus, respondent’s
unopposed request to lift the stay (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.
Akwinder Kaur, Paramjit Singh, and Akashdeep Singh, natives and citizens
of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations,
Mendez-Mendez v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 828, 832 (9th Cir. 2008), and review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act,
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition
for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Kaur applied for asylum
within a reasonable period of time after expiration of her legal status in the United
States, or that she otherwise established any changed or extraordinary
circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir.
2008). We reject her contention that the agency did not consider the
circumstances surrounding the delay in filing. Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to her asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
2 13-72680
based on the inconsistencies as to whether police visited petitioners prior to
January 29, 2006, and whether police threatened petitioners with death in 2008.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the totality of circumstances). Petitioners’ explanations do not compel the
opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject
petitioners’ contentions as to the translation of their hearing. See id. at 1246(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners’ CAT claims also fail because they are based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not otherwise point to
any evidence in the record that compels the finding it is more likely than not they
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government.
See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (although reports
confirmed torture took place in petitioner’s country, the reports did not compel the
conclusion that petitioner would be tortured). We reject petitioners’ contentions
that the agency failed to analyze their claim properly. See Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
3 13-72680
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 13-72680