NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAYAKANTH BALASUBRAMANIAN, No. 12-73339
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-883-652
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jayakanth Balasubramanian, 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 withholding of removal
and relief 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency as to alleged harm against Balasubramanian’s family,
and the omission from Balasubramanian’s asylum application of his uncle’s
candidacy and Balasubramanian’s personal harm. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances); see also
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the
applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility
finding.”). Balasubramanian’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Balasubramanian’s withholding of removal claim fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Balasubramanian’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and Balasubramanian does not point to
any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he
2 12-73339
would be tortured if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73339