Surinder Saini 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER SAINI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71237
Agency No. A097-102-403
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Saini, 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 jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71237 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595
F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Saini’s testimony was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his
declaration regarding the circumstances of his arrest and release, including the date
of the arrest and whether Amrik Singh was released from custody with Saini or had
been handed over to the Punjab police. See id. at 1058 (inconsistencies regarding
petitioners’ arrests and release went to the heart of the claim and supported an
adverse credibility finding). Saini’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Saini’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Because Saini’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not that he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --