Kaur v. Holder , 385 F. App'x 698 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDHIR KAUR, No. 06-71334
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-810-526
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER, Senior
District Judge.**
Sandhir Kaur is a Sikh native and citizen of India petitioning for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District
Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Kaur principally contends that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding, arguing that there are no inconsistencies or
discrepancies going to the heart of her claim. Both the BIA and the IJ alternatively
concluded, however, that even if Kaur’s testimony was credible, there had been
significant changes in country conditions that would enable her to return to India
without the likelihood of persecution or torture. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A), and 1208.16(c)(2). That finding is
supported by substantial evidence, because this record does not compel a contrary
result. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Kaur cites
only an inconclusive sentence from the Department of State Country Report
included in the record, and otherwise improperly relies on general statements in a
later Country Report not included in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)
(“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record
on which the order of removal is based.”).
Accordingly, the petition for review must be denied.
DENIED.
2