FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MADHU SHURY, a.k.a. Kamlesh Joshi, No. 10-72421
a.k.a. Kamlesh Joshi Rani,
Agency No. A099-438-480
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Madhu Shury, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Among other things, the BIA found Shury not credible based on her failure
to mention in her first asylum statement that her husband burned her leg with an
iron and pushed her into a stove, setting her headdress on fire. Substantial
evidence supports this finding. See id. at 1047 (adverse credibility determination
supported based on totality of the circumstances); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (significant omissions from asylum applications can be
substantial evidence in support of an adverse credibility determination); see also
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence
supported adverse credibility determination where supplemental declaration and
testimony told a more compelling story of persecution than the initial application,
and IJ considered petitioner’s explanation). In the absence of credible testimony,
Shury’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 10-72421
Because Shury’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72421