KANWALJIT GILL V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-72010 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 05 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KANWALJIT SINGH GILL, Petitioner, No. 09-72010 Agency No. A096-139-534 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Kanwaljit Singh Gill, 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 jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination based upon the inconsistencies between Gill s testimony and the affidavits he submitted regarding the timing and circumstances of his father s arrests. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Gill s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, because Gill s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-72010

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.