FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURJIT KAUR GILL, No. 11-73091
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-656-860
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER,GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Surjit Kaur Gill, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
adverse credibility findings. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Gill testified that the police persecuted her and her family because of her
brother Surkhjinder Singh Gill’s political activities. Gill initially testified that she
did not have other siblings besides Surkhjinder. But, Gill then admitted that she
had another brother and two sisters, and did not testify they had experienced any
problems. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding
based on these statements. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.
2011) (inconsistencies that go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim may deprive the
claim of the requisite ring of truth); see also Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181 (petitioner’s
decision to lie to immigration authorities constituted substantial evidence
supporting an adverse credibility finding). The agency was not compelled to
accept Gill’s explanations for the false statements. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review any new
argument Gill makes in her opening brief that the false statements were the result
of translation problems, because Gill did not raise this to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony,
2 11-73091
Gill’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Gill’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more
likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim also
fails. Id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Gill’s challenge to the denial of
voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,
1255 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73091