Jajbir Pannu v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAJBIR SINGH PANNU, No. 15-70309
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-572-272
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jajbir Singh Pannu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
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 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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on, among other things, inconsistencies between Pannu’s testimony and
documentary evidence as to the injuries the police inflicted on Pannu and when
Pannu went to the hospital for treatment, the omission from a doctor’s letter of a
traumatic injury, and the IJ’s demeanor finding. See id., 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”);
see also Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need for
deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”).
Pannu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Pannu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Pannu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Pannu does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
2 15-70309
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of India. Id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70309