Mukesh Kumar 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUKESH KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73142
Agency No. A097-108-486
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mukesh Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing an appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the adverse credibility finding for
substantial evidence. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Kumar’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application. See
Chebchoub v. INS., 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). Specifically, Kumar’s
testimony included additional incidents which were not included in his asylum
application and Kumar failed to adequately explain these differences. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Kumar’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Kumar failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
upon return to India. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --