FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERDENECHIMEG TSEVEENDORJ, No. 08-70735
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-167-617
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Erdenechimeg Tseveendorj, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny
the petition.
The record supports the IJ’s conclusion that Tseveendorj lacked basic
knowledge about her political party’s governance of Mongolia and that she did not
know the reason for a demonstration that she claimed to have participated in. See
Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility
finding supported based in part on “how little knowledge [petitioner] had of
political activities in India”). Tseveendorj also testified inconsistently regarding
her second contact with Mongolian police, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964
(9th Cir. 2004), and the IJ reasonably rejected Tseveendorj’s explanation for the
inconsistency, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1153. In the absence of credible
testimony, Tseveendorj’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Tseveendorj’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the
agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more
likely than not she would be tortured if she returns to Mongolia, Tseveendorj’s
CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70735