FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMKUARI, No. 10-71284
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-783-966
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior
District Judge.***
Ramkuari, a native and citizen of Fiji, seeks review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing an appeal from the denial of her claims
*
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).
***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We note that she does not seek review of the denial of her application for
asylum, which was dismissed as time-barred. We conclude that substantial
evidence supported the adverse credibility determination and deny the petition for
review.
The BIA provided “specific, cogent reasons” for affirming the determination
and discrediting Ramkuari’s testimony under the terms of the REAL ID Act. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010); Zamanov v. Holder, --- F.3d
----, 2011 WL 1651231 at *4 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011). In her hearing testimony and
supplemental declaration Ramkuari testified about many purported events of
persecution in addition to those she had previously identified. See id. at *3-4. She
also failed to provide corroborating evidence of her claims, and she frequently
gave non-responsive answers. We are not persuaded by Ramkuari’s argument that
non-responsive answers unrelated to her claims of persecution in Fiji could not
support an adverse credibility determination; the statute as amended in 2005 by the
REAL ID Act states that adverse credibility determinations may be made whether
inconsistencies go to the heart of an applicant’s claim or not. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
2
With her own testimony discredited, Ramkuari’s claim for CAT relief rested
entirely upon the Country Reports, and they did not establish that she faced a
probability of torture upon return to Fiji which would warrant CAT protection. To
the contrary, Ramkuari’s allegations of widespread torture of Indo-Fijians were
undermined by country reports and other information on record.
PETITION DENIED.
3