HARDEEP KUMAR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72744 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-72744 HARDEEP KUMAR, Agency No. A099-864-614 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.*** Hardeep Kumar petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge s * 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). *** The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. ( IJ ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). The BIA dismissed the appeal by upholding the IJ s adverse credibility determination based on Petitioner s demeanor; the inconsistent, unresponsive, and implausible nature of his testimony; and lack of corroborating evidence. These findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1045 48 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Petitioner did not testify credibly, he did not satisfy his burden to establish that he was persecuted in the past or faced a threat of persecution if returned to India. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner therefore also did not satisfy the higher burden to establish a right to withholding of removal. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014). Because Petitioner s CAT claim is based on the same testimony and evidence found to lack credibility, and because no other evidence in the record compels the finding that he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 57 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
