Baljit Kaur Pattar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALJIT KAUR PATTAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75404
Agency No. A077-833-439
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Baljit Kaur Pattar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing her appeal of the denial of her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Pattar’s claims for relief because she
found Pattar’s testimony internally inconsistent. We review credibility findings for
substantial evidence. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004).
The adverse credibility determination must be upheld “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).
In making the adverse credibility determination, the IJ noted two key
inconsistencies in Pattar’s testimony about (1) her husband’s political affiliation,
and (2) her alleged physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the local police.
Although reasonable minds could disagree as to the consistency of Pattar’s
testimony on the latter, the evidence in the record simply does not compel a result
contrary to the IJ’s determination. Thus, we are bound to defer to the IJ’s decision
as to Pattar’s eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See Don v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Th[e] deferential standard of review
precludes relief absent a conclusion that no reasonable factfinder could have
reached the agency’s result.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on this adverse credibility determination, the IJ also reasonably
denied Pattar’s application for relief under CAT. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of a CAT claim where claims were
“based on the same statements . . . that the BIA determined to be not credible”).
Accordingly, Pattar’s Petition for Review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --