FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHEM CHANDER, Nos. 12-73316
13-71361
Petitioner,
Agency No. A200-774-617
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Khem Chander, a native and citizen
of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”) (No. 12-73316), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings (No. 13-71361). 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of
discretion the agency’s denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d
488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000), and the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the finding that Chander’s testimony was inherently implausible, and based
on the inconsistencies between Chander’s testimony and his brother’s affidavit. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under
the totality of circumstances). Chander does not challenge the agency’s
implausibility finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Contrary to Chander’s contention, the agency considered his explanations
for the inconsistencies, and those explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of
credible testimony, Chander’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
2 12-73316 & 13-71361
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, in light of the
adverse credibility determination, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (requiring showing of past
persecution).
Chander’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record to
compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official in India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-
49. Chander fails to overcome the presumption that the agency considered all the
evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
We do not reach Chander’s arguments regarding corroboration or the
reasonableness of relocation. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (this court’s review is
limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chander’s untimely
motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738
(9th Cir. 2007) (polygraph evidence did not support motion to reopen because it was
not previously unavailable).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73316 & 13-71361