FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEEVAN KUMAR, No. 08-74135
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-102-281
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Jeevan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding where
Kumar provided inconsistent testimony regarding whether he had contact with
police during the 12-month period between June 1999 and June 2000. See Singh v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the adverse
credibility finding is supported by the IJ’s negative assessment of Kumar’s
demeanor due to non-responsive answers and long pauses in his testimony. See
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given
to credibility determinations that are based on demeanor). In the absence of
credible testimony, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Kumar’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74135