FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DHANANJAY KUMAR MEHTA, No. 13-72157
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-044-969
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Dhananjay Kumar Mehta, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection 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 standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo claims of due process violations,
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency found Mehta not credible based on multiple inconsistencies in
the record, including significant inconsistencies regarding whether he was a
member of Ranvir Sena. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination under the totality of the circumstances. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048. The agency reasonably rejected Mehta’s explanations for the
inconsistencies. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We
reject Mehta’s contention that he was ineffectively assisted by prior counsel. See
Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring compliance with
Matter of Lozada where alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not obvious
and undisputed on the face of the record). In the absence of credible testimony,
Mehta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 13-72157
Mehta’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Mehta’s contentions that his due process rights were
violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72157