Deepak Kainth v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEEPAK KAINTH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73064
Agency No. A089-684-245
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submission Deferred February 12, 2015
Submitted December 23, 2015**
San Francisco California
Before: TASHIMA, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Deepak Kainth, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s entry of an order
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
FILED
DEC 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. The
inconsistencies identified by the IJ and BIA are not so trivial as to make them
immaterial for purposes of assessing credibility. “[E]ven minor inconsistencies that
have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may constitute the basis for an adverse
credibility determination.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011).
Although Kainth has offered various explanations for these inconsistencies, the IJ
and the BIA are not required to credit these explanations. Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). The adverse credibility determination was
reasonable, and Kainth’s contention that the IJ and BIA did not properly consider
the totality of the circumstances lacks merit.
The determination that Kainth’s proffered corroborative evidence was
unreliable was also supported by substantial evidence. We uphold the BIA’s
determination unless the record “compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v.
Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, it does not.
In the absence of credible evidence, the asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The CAT
claim, which is based on the same testimony, also fails. Id. at 1156–57.
Petition DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --