Palwinder Kaur 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).
JLA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PALWINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71108
Agency No. A073-419-767
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Palwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for relief under the Convention Against
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-71108 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations,
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for
review.
On July 26, 2006, the court issued a memorandum disposition that
concluded substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility finding,
and, thus, that Kaur’s asylum and withholding of removal claims failed. See Kaur
v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 2073772 (9th Cir. July 26, 2006). The court remanded
Kaur’s CAT claim because the BIA did not address it. On remand, the BIA denied
Kaur’s CAT claim and Kaur petitions for review of that decision.
Even if Kaur properly raised her CAT claim to the BIA, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s denial of the claim because it is based on the same testimony
found to be not credible and Kaur points to no evidence to show a clear probability
of torture if she is returned to India. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-
57 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Kaur’s contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by
not remanding her CAT claim to the immigration judge because Kaur did not file a
motion for remand, or otherwise indicate the need for further fact-finding, but

-- 2 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-71108 3
instead rested her argument solely on her testimony. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process claim petitioner must show
error and prejudice); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (“A party asserting that the Board
cannot properly resolve an appeal without further factfinding must file a motion for
remand.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --