FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALVIR KAUR DHILLON and JAGRAJ No. 11-73542
SINGH DHILLON,
Agency Nos. A089-679-410
Petitioners, A089-679-411
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 11, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Balvir Kaur Dhillon and Jagraj Singh Dhillon petition for review
of a final order of removal. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Cortez-Pineda v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA")
adverse credibility determination. Lead Petitioner testified repeatedly that her
husband was arrested exactly four times and that she was present at the fourth
arrest. When confronted with the fact that she could not have been present at his
fourth arrest, she then testified that her husband was arrested five times. The BIA
was not required to believe her explanation that she had been confused when
answering the earlier questions. That inconsistency was not trivial and was
considered by the BIA in light of the totality of the circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) ("Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the
consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements
. . . ."); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) ("When an
inconsistency is cited as a factor supporting an adverse credibility determination,
that inconsistency should not be a mere trivial error such as a misspelling, and the
petitioner's explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be considered in
weighing credibility." (citations omitted)).
The BIA correctly held that, without credible testimony or other persuasive
evidence, Petitioners failed to meet their burden to establish entitlement to asylum,
withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.
2