NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
THAKUR SINGH; GURCHARAN No. 07-74495
KAUR,
Agency Nos. A072-115-383
Petitioners, A070-537-980
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 14, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HUFF, District Judge.**
Thakur Singh and Gurcharan Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, protection
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure. We
deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and
procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.
I
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination in this
case. The record is replete with testimonial inconsistencies and discrepancies in
Petitioners’ application documents that provide substantial evidence to support the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Of particular note are the inconsistencies
concerning the number and the dates of the alleged arrests. Petitioners concede
that at least some of the inconsistencies go to the heart of the their claim. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility ruling will be
upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the ‘heart of the asylum claim.’”)
(citation omitted). Petitioners contend that these inconsistencies were the result of
psychological impairments. There is support for this argument in the record.
However, both the BIA and the IJ took the psychological evidence into
consideration, and substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that
the impairments were not significant enough to explain the inconsistencies.
II
-2-
The BIA and IJ did not reject Petitioners’ CAT claim solely on an adverse
credibility determination, as Petitioners allege. The IJ’s decision indicates that he
considered Petitioners’ CAT claim separately from their asylum claim by
reviewing the evidence on the record to determine whether Petitioners had a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57
(9th Cir. 2003). The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning in affirming denial of CAT
relief. Substantial evidence in the record, notably the relevant country reports,
supports this conclusion.
III
We have jurisdiction to consider the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure on the
basis of lack of good moral character because the IJ’s determination was based on
non-discretionary aspects of the voluntary departure statute’s moral character
requirement. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003).
However, the record supports the IJ’s determination that the Petitioners gave false
testimony under oath for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit.
Therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure.
PETITION DENIED.
-3-