Rajat Kumar, a.k.a. Rajat Rajat, a.k.a. Rajat Sharma 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAJAT KUMAR, a.k.a. Rajat Rajat, a.k.a.
Rajat Sharma,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72074
Agency No. A098-522-873
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.
Rajat Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72074 2
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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Kumar established
extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. 1208.4(a)(5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, because Kumar admitted he told the Asylum Officer that his entire
claim was fabricated, see Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.
1985) (history of dishonesty supports an adverse credibility determination), and
because of the inconsistencies between his testimony and asylum application as to
what police accused him of doing, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.
2004) (a negative credibility finding will be upheld “so long as one of the
identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of
[the] claim.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Kumar’s withholding of
removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --