FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANISH KUMAR, No. 10-71241
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-127-173
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Manish Kumar, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the implausibility of Kumar’s testimony that he was unaware of problems
in Punjab between the police and members of the Akali Dal Mann political party.
See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001). The record also lacks
corroboration for Kumar’s claim that the Akali Dal Mann party and police are
linked and his claim that Akali Dal Mann party members, and members of the
Hindu group Shiv Sena, target members of Kumar’s Nirankari faith. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2009); Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085,
1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or
does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony
can be fatal to his asylum application.”). Accordingly, Kumar’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003). In light of our conclusions regarding Kumar’s lack of credibility,
Kumar’s humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d
2 10-71241
270, 275-76 (9th Cir. 2006) (remand would be futile when the reviewing court can
confidently predict the outcome).
Because Kumar’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency
found not credible and uncorroborated, and he points to no other evidence showing
it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also
fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57; see also Aden, 589 F.3d at 1047.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71241