Arora, et al v. Holder, No. 07-71958 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SURINDER KUMAR ARORA, Petitioner, No. 07-71958 Agency No. A096-155-787 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Surinder Kumar Arora, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his 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, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility determination because the IJ made a specific and cogent demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003), and because Arora s testimony regarding his injuries was inconsistent with his medical documents, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). In the absence of credible testimony, Arora s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Arora s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-71958

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.