Inderjit Singh Joshan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
INDERJIT SINGH JOSHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73527
Agency No. A098-138-948
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Inderjit Singh Joshan, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73527 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Joshan’s testimony and his Canadian asylum
application with regard to whether he was hospitalized after his arrests, and
whether suspected militant Tari was armed when he came to Joshan’s home. 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 where the inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Further, the agency
reasonably rejected Joshan’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). We decline to reach Joshan’s
unexhausted claim that he is eligible for humanitarian asylum. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony,
Joshan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Joshan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73527 3
that he will be tortured if returned to India, substantial evidence also supports the
denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --