FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAVINDER KAUR MAHLI, No. 11-73877
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-650-582
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ravinder Kaur Mahli, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Mahli’s admittedly false Canadian asylum application based on a
different story, and the inconsistency between her asylum application and
testimony about whether she was ever arrested or detained by Indian police. See
id. at 1046-47 (“[a]lthough inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the
petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is
of great weight.”); Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999) (“false
statements made to establish the critical elements of the asylum claim . . . involve[]
the heart of the asylum claim,” rather than being “incidental to the asylum
claim[.]”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Mahli’s explanations
do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Mahli’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
2 11-73877
Finally, Mahli’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found not credible, and she points to no other evidence to compel the
finding that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to India. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1049. We reject Mahli’s contention that the BIA failed to
conduct a distinct CAT analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73877