Subindu Barua v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUBINDU BARUA, No. 11-73298
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-943
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Subindu Barua, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 review de
novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Barua claims Muslim extremists harmed and menaced him on account of his
Buddhist religion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination because Barua omitted from his asylum application that he was
beaten at the June 2000 religious event, and because he testified inconsistently
about his role in organizing the event. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1045-48 (adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances” standard). The agency reasonably rejected Barua’s explanations
for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.
2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Barua’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Barua’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
2 11-73298
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh. See id. at
1156-57.
We reject Barua’s contention that the IJ’s decision regarding expert
testimony violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Barua’s contentions regarding the
accuracy of the translation and transcript because he did not raise them to the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73298