Surinder Kumar Arora 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER KUMAR ARORA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71958
Agency No. A096-155-787
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Kumar Arora, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71958 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because the IJ made a specific and cogent demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v.
Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003), and because Arora’s testimony
regarding his injuries was inconsistent with his medical documents, see Goel v.
Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). In the absence of credible
testimony, Arora’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Arora’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --