George Agnel Godinho 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE AGNEL GODINHO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70931
Agency No. A098-141-535
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
George Agnel Godinho, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70931 2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility
findings, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de
novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon Godinho’s omission of statements by police indicating they persecuted
him account of his Christian religion from his declaration. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.
2005). Godinho’s explanations for the omission do not compel the conclusion he
is credible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Absent credible
testimony, Godinho’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Godinho’s due process contention fails because the IJ warned him that by
signing his asylum application he was asserting the information in the application
was complete, and the lack of any express warning by the IJ that she could draw an
adverse credibility determination based upon omissions did not render the
proceedings “fundamentally unfair.” See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 07-70931 3
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Godinho
failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --