NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALWINDER SINGH and No. 13-71173
SUKHWINDER KAUR,
Agency Nos. A088-544-294
Petitioners, A088-544-295
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have 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. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s inconsistent testimony regarding his participation in Shiromani
Akali Dal Amritsar rallies and the discrepancies between Singh and Kaur’s
testimony as to whether Singh’s father participated in securing Singh’s release
after his third alleged arrest. See id.; Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of
the circumstances). We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to
sufficiently consider their corroborative evidence. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate testimony or
support independent claim for relief). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony,
in this case, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang,
754 F.3d at 740.
Finally, petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any
evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not they would be
2 13-71173
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
India. See id. at 740-41.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71173