NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 5 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAVINDER KUMAR, No. 14-73142
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-620-484
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ravinder Kumar, 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 jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies as to Kumar’s visa application, occupation, passports, and
marriage. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under
the “totality of circumstances”). Kumar’s explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency not
compelled to accept petitioner’s explanation for discrepancy even if plausible).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kumar’s corroborative
evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785,791 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Kumar’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does
not point to evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely
2 14-73142
than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73142