NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MANPREET KAUR, No. 10-70225
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-177-106
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: B. FLETCHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN, District
Judge.**
Petitioner Manpreet Kaur appeals from a final removal order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of
her claims seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Because we find that the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, we deny the
petition for review.
We review adverse credibility determinations under the deferential
substantial evidence standard of the REAL ID Act of 2005. See Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). In making a credibility
determination, the trier of fact should consider “the totality of the circumstances,
and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Here, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that Kaur’s credibility was
undermined by inconsistencies between her application for asylum and her actual
testimony. First, her application materials indicated that she was employed by a
government high school between June 1994 and June 2002, but she then testified
that she worked for a newspaper starting December 2000. She also testified that as
part of her prior refugee application in Canada, she had provided articles about
political corruption and election fraud in India, which she wrote. The Canadian
Refugee Protection Division, however, observed that Kaur had not presented any
such documents. Finally, the BIA noted that Kaur failed to provide corroborative
documentation in response to the IJ’s request that she support the claim that she
published articles relating to government or police corruption. Accordingly, we
uphold the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of Kaur’s petition on credibility
grounds.
Because we deny the petition on credibility grounds, we need not address the
IJ’s alternate holdings that Kaur would not be eligible for withholding of removal
or protection under the Convention against Torture if she were found credible.
PETITION DENIED.