The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-74477•Kuldip Kaur v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-74477Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 19, 2010
* 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).
*** The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the
District of Montana, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULDIP KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74477
Agency No. A099-330-481
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, Chief District
Judge.***
Kuldip Kaur, a national and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
under the REAL ID Act, which applies. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, §
101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Although
Kaur gave detailed testimony about other things, her testimony about harassment
she claimed to suffer was vague, generalized, and devoid of details. Likewise, the
affidavits submitted by the sarpanch of her village and Kaur’s brother fail to
mention any problems that Kaur experienced. Given the totality of the
circumstances, the IJ was not compelled to find her credible. That being so, there
was no credible evidence to support her claim for asylum, withholding of removal,
or relief under CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.