John Hedwig Fernandes 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN HEDWIG FERNANDES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72423
Agency No. A088-590-452
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
John Hedwig Fernandes, 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
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-72423
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Fernandes’ omission from his declaration of two arrests and beatings by
police in 2006, his inconsistent testimony regarding the reason for the arrests and
beatings, and his inconsistent testimony regarding the length of time he was
detained by police in 2004. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). The agency
reasonably rejected Fernandes’ explanations for the omission and inconsistencies.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of
credible testimony, Fernandes’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Fernandes’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than
not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --