FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARANJIT KAUR BOLA, No. 09-71300
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-840-777
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Charanjit Kaur Bola, 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 protection 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 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission of the 2002 and 2003 police incidents from Bola’s asylum
application, and her submission of the Shiromani Akali Dal letter, which
contradicted her statement that she was not a member of that party. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (discrepancies between testimony,
declaration, and letter of membership supported adverse credibility determination);
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility
finding supported where incidents petitioner omitted from asylum application
materially altered claim); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Bola’s
explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974.
Contrary to Bola’s contentions, the IJ addressed her explanation for the omissions,
and inquired whether she submitted the Shiromani Akali Dal letter in English
2 09-71300
without understanding its contents. In the absence of credible testimony, Bola’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Bola’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and she points to no other evidence compelling the
finding that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to India.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1049.
Finally, we deny Bola’s renewed motion for a stay of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71300