Kewal Singh Khinda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KEWAL SINGH KHINDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71523
Agency No. A096-160-797
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Kewal Singh Khinda, a 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”). Our
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-71523
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Khinda claims he has suffered harm from police because of his father’s
political activism. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on Khinda’s admission that he lied on his original asylum
application and in his testimony to the asylum officer, see id. at 1181, the
contradiction between Khinda’s testimony and the affidavit from his father
regarding one of the main incidents of his claim, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d
735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007), and the implausibility of his claim, see Liu v. Holder, 640
F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011). The agency reasonably rejected Khinda’s
explanation. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the
absence of credible testimony, Khinda’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Khinda’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony found
not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-71523
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Khinda’s extreme hardship claim
and his new ineffective assistance of counsel claim, because he failed to raise them
before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 647, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --