Darshan 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 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DARSHAN KAUR; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71114
Agency Nos. A099-330-188
A099-330-189
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-71114
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 of 2 --