Jashandeep Kaur v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASHANDEEP KAUR, No. 08-71630
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-589-090
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jashandeep Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 factual
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review de
novo questions of law, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancy between Kaur’s testimony and her statements to the
asylum officer regarding the mistreatment she suffered in detention, and based on
the discrepancy between Kaur’s testimony and her declaration regarding the
circumstances of her release from police custody. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
962-63 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th
Cir. 2005) (listing indica of reliability for an asylum officer’s notes). In the
absence of credible testimony, Kaur’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not
credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not she
will be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Kaur’s contention that the IJ was biased, because she has
not demonstrated any bias or that the outcome of the proceedings was affected.
See Rivera, 508 F.3d at 1276.
2 08-71630
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71630