Suketo Surendra Desai; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUKETO SURENDRA DESAI; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73089
Agency Nos. A070-536-970
A070-536-969
A070-536-967
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Suketo Surendra Desai, and his famly, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
JUL 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-73089 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
an adverse credibility determination, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.
2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in the record regarding the timing and circumstances of
Desai’s brother’s death. See id. at 964 (we are bound to accept an adverse
credibility finding as long as one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioner’s claim). Desai was
provided with an adequate opportunity to explain these inconsistencies, but failed
to do so. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9thCir. 2005).
In the absence of credible testimony, Desai’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Desai’s 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
will be tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --