FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJINDER KAUR; GURBIR SINGH, No. 06-73356
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-399-055
A095-399-056
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Baljinder Kaur and Gurbir Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for 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, Singh-
Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kaur’s testimony
that the police killed her father in 1991 was inconsistent with the affidavit from her
town’s sarpanch which stated that terrorists killed her father in 1999. See Pal v.
INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kaur omitted from her asylum
application declaration that police beat her four times during her first arrest, and
that police arrested her a second time because she filed a complaint about the
police to a human rights organization. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64
(9th Cir. 2004). The agency reasonably rejected Kaur’s explanations for the
inconsistencies and omissions. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th
Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Kaur’s withholding
of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
2 06-73356
she would be tortured if she returns to India, Kaur’s CAT claim also fails. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-73356