Manjit Kaur Sidhu 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).
KAD/Research 06-74130
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJIT KAUR SIDHU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74130
Agency No. A075-259-987
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.
Manjit Kaur Sidhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 06-74130 2
deportation, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Sidhu admitted she lied concerning the identification of her husband, and
this admission goes to the heart of her claim. See id. at 741-44. In the absence of
credible testimony, Sidhu’s asylum and withholding of deportation claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Sidhu’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and Sidhu points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
she would be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --