Farooq v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UMER FAROOQ, No. 07-71578
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-638-634
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Umer Farooq, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Farooq established changed
or extraordinary circumstances that excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4),(5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Farooq’s asylum claim is denied.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that there were inconsistencies
between the documents he submitted relating to the alleged death of his father and
the circumstances surrounding the death of his friend, see Li, 378 F.3d at 962, and
that the authenticity of the documents went to the heart of Farooq’s claim, see
Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible
testimony, Farooq failed to establish he is eligible for withholding of removal. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Farooq’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if he returned to Pakistan, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-
57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-71578