Sarbjot 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARBJOT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71104
Agency No. A089-671-082
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Sarbjot Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71104 2
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 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency in Kaur’s story regarding how her uncle learned about
her arrest, see Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding
adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies regarding circumstances of
arrest and release), and on the inconsistencies between Kaur’s testimony and
documentary evidence regarding various addresses, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d
735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding); see also Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
REAL ID Act’s “totality of circumstances”). Kaur’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
In the absence of credible testimony, Kaur’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and she does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71104 3
than not that she will be tortured if returned to India, her CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --