FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 8 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GULSHAN KUMAR SHARMA, No. 19-72307
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-822-997
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District
Judge.
Gulshan Kumar Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the
*
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).
***
The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief. We
deny the petition.
We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The agency must provide “specific
and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination,” and
consider the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. Id. at 1044
(internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We may not
reverse the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We will uphold an adverse credibility
determination if at least one of the reasons given by the agency supports that
determination. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sharma was not
credible, including implausible aspects of his account of persecution, the lack of
detail surrounding key aspects of his story, and the omission of pertinent details
from his asylum application. For example, the BIA noted that the IJ found it
“troubling that the respondent could not recall the name of the lender that he
claimed was persecuting him and has connections with the Bharatiya Janata Party
(“BJP”).” In this petition, Sharma does not argue that the inability to remember the
2
name of the alleged money lender who persecuted him does not constitute
substantial evidence sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination.
Rather, he argues that the IJ “erred in concluding that Petitioner could not recall
the persecutor’s name” because the record “show[s] that Petitioner was not asked
to provide lender’s name.” Sharma’s argument is unpersuasive. The record
testimony that Sharma cites for the proposition that he was not asked to provide the
money lender’s name clearly shows that he was so asked. In the relevant portion of
testimony, Sharma’s lawyer asked him: “Okay. And this individual you borrowed
money from, what was his name?” Sharma responded: “I do not remember his
name now.”
A trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the “inherent
plausibility” of an account. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Singh v. Lynch,
802 F.3d 972, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2015). Sharma’s failure to recall the money lender’s
name casts significant doubt on the plausibility of his account of persecution
because the money lender was his alleged persecutor and the debt he owed to that
individual was the purported cause of his flight from India.
The BIA considered the documentary evidence submitted by Sharma and
reasonably concluded that it did not rehabilitate his lack of credibility. The
evidence does not compel the conclusion that Sharma is credible. In the absence of
3
credible testimony from Sharma, the IJ and BIA permissibly denied his claims for
asylum and withholding of removal.1 Moreover, Sharma has not presented
independent evidence to establish his eligibility for CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2
1
Because Sharma cannot establish eligibility for asylum or withholding
of removal in the absence of credible testimony, we do not address Sharma’s
arguments challenging the BIA’s determination that his proposed social groups are
not cognizable or that he failed to prove that his persecutors were motivated by his
political opinion.
2
Sharma’s separate motion to stay removal pending the petition for
review [Dkt. 1] is denied as moot.
4