Paramjit 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARAMJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70390
Agency No. A070-917-445
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit 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 relief
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DL/Research 07-70390 2
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility
determinations, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon a discrepancy between Kaur’s testimony and her asylum application
regarding the number of times she was arrested, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d
1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and Kaur’s explanation for the discrepancy does not
compel the conclusion she is credible, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2000). Absent 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 upon the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence compelling the
conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to India,
Kaur’s CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --