NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
SODHI SINGH-KAUR, No. 10-72821 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-682-601
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sodhi Singh-Kaur, a citizen and national of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
("CAT"). Reviewing for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings in this
pre-REAL ID Act case, Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995),
including those portions of the IJ’s decision that the BIA has reviewed and
adopted, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002), we affirm.
1. At least "one of the identified grounds [for the adverse credibility
determination] is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart" of
Petitioner’s claim. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). For
example, Petitioner’s various statements and documentary evidence told different
stories about an alleged incident at a temple on June 5, 2003, that led to his arrest
in India, and in his Record of Sworn Statement, Petitioner stated that he had never
been arrested, which directly contradicted his later testimony about past arrests in
India and Costa Rica. The fact and details of Petitioner’s arrest in India were
central to his claim. We therefore "are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding," id., which was properly adopted by the BIA, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i).
In the absence of credible testimony, nothing in the record compels the conclusion
that Petitioner suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future
persecution on a protected ground, as required to sustain an asylum claim, 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13; or that Petitioner’s life or freedom will be threatened if he is removed, as
required for withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
2
2. Petitioner’s CAT claim depends on the same testimony that was found
not credible, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003), and nothing
else in the record compels the conclusion that Petitioner is more likely than not to
be tortured if removed, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Substantial evidence therefore
also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to
establish a CAT claim. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.
2003).
DENIED.
3