FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YATENDER SHARMA, No. 13-73227
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-105-816
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Yatender Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Sharma’s declaration, testimony, and
documentary evidence, as to how he was beaten, whether his father reported the
attacks to the police and was subsequently beaten by the police, and whether the
Bharatiya Janata Party continued to look for Sharma after his departure from India.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL
ID Act’s totality of the circumstances standard); see also Alvarez-Santos v. INS,
332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s omission of a “dramatic pivotal
event” from his asylum application supported adverse credibility determination).
The agency reasonably rejected Sharma’s explanations for the inconsistencies.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (record did not compel
conclusion that IJ’s rejection of explanation was erroneous). In the absence of
credible testimony, Sharma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 13-73227
We lack jurisdiction to review Sharma’s due process claim because he failed
to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in
part.
3 13-73227