Gurminder Kaur v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURMINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70596
Agency No. A096-494-642
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gurminder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judges’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70596 2
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial
evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
upon Kaur’s internally inconsistent testimony as to whether the police told her how
they thought she was working against the government. See id. at 741-42
(inconsistency goes to the heart of the claim if it concerns events central to
petitioner’s version of why she was persecuted). Substantial evidence further
supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based upon the inconsistency
between Kaur’s declaration and her testimony regarding whether her brother, who
Kaur testified was also targeted by the police, was at home when the police came
to the house after Kaur’s release from detention, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d
1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007), and based upon Kaur’s non-responsive and evasive
answers to questions regarding her testimony, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250,
1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent credible testimony, Kaur’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70596 3
Because Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found
not credible, and Kaur does not point to any other evidence the agency should have
considered, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --