Bahadar Ram Lakha 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BAHADAR RAM LAKHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73212
Agency No. A029-904-467
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bahadar Ram Lakha, 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73212 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created
by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency concluded Lakha was not credible for a number of reasons,
including the discrepancies between his testimony and declaration regarding the
reports he made to the police of the attacks against him. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Lahka’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
In addition, the record supports the agency’s denial of Lahka’s CAT claim
because it is made on the basis of the same statements the agency found not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that shows it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.
Accordingly, Lahka’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --