Jaswant Sran v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWANT SINGH SRAN, No. 08-72229
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-843-089
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jaswant Singh Sran, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have 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 due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Sran submitted several fraudulent documents. See Lin v. Gonzales, 434
F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (IJ may deny an asylum application as not credible
based on documentary evidence if there is evidence undermining the reliability of
the documents). We lack jurisdiction to consider Sran’s contention that the IJ
erred when it relied on documents he did not obtain, because he did not present this
argument to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
In the absence of credible testimony, Sran’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Sran’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-
57.
Finally, we reject Sran’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process
rights. The admission of the hearsay testimony of the government investigator’s
2 08-72229
interviewees in India was not fundamentally unfair. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d
1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, Sran has not demonstrated the revised
transcript of the government investigator’s testimony, the absence of a translation
of the proceeding in which the IJ and the attorneys agreed on a methodology for re-
transcribing the government investigator’s testimony, or the IJ’s sustained
objections to questions regarding the jail record, either constituted an error or
caused prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72229