DARSHAN KAUR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-71114 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARSHAN KAUR; et al., No. 09-71114 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-330-188 A099-330-189 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Darshan Kaur and her son, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We * 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). have 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), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination because Kaur gave inconsistent testimony regarding her husband s whereabouts on the date of her first alleged arrest, see id. at 1040 44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act s totality of the circumstances ), and Kaur s explanation does not compel a different conclusion, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency finding that explanations were insufficient). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Kaur s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57. We reject Kaur s contention the BIA failed to properly analyze her CAT claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-71114
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.
