Akash Deep Hothi, a.k.a. Paramjit Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AKASH DEEP HOTHI, a.k.a. Paramjit
Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71593
Agency No. A097-548-913
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Akash Deep Hothi, a.k.a. Paramjit Singh, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71593 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Hothi’s failure to establish his identity, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and inconsistencies between Hothi’s testimony and
supporting documentation regarding where Indian police detained him during his
arrests, see Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (inconsistencies related to basis for
alleged fear of persecution go the heart of the claim). The IJ’s negative assessment
of Hothi’s demeanor also supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given
to credibility determinations based on applicant’s demeanor). In the absence of
credible testimony, Hothi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Hothi’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and because country reports do not show it is more likely than not that he
will be tortured if he returned to India, we deny the petition as to the CAT claim.
See id. at 1156-57. We reject Hothi’s contention that the BIA failed to consider
evidence of torture in India. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71593 3
Cir. 2006) (applicant must overcome presumption that the BIA considered the
evidence of record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --