Ziyaul Haque v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZIYAUL HAQUE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70318
Agency No. A089-302-869
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ziyaul Haque, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
AUG 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The agency concluded Haque was not credible for a number of reasons,
including the lack of detail in his testimony regarding the Bharatiya Janata Party
and the All India Muslim Unity Front, and Haque’s inability to explain his
simultaneous membership in these two groups. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances). Haque’s
explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Haque’s contention that the IJ unreasonably
rejected his explanations. In the absence of credible testimony, Haque’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Haque’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements found not credible, and Haque points to no other evidence to compel the
finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent
12-70318 2

-- 2 of 3 --

or acquiescence of the Indian government. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70318 3

-- 3 of 3 --