Zubiar Uddin Khan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZUBIAR UDDIN KHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70709
Agency No. A098-539-272
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Zubiar Uddin Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 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”). We have
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70709 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and deny the petition for review.
Even if Khan timely filed his asylum application, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies
between Khan’s testimony and the letter from the Sanan Academy he submitted
regarding the date and other details central to his alleged attack by religious
fundamentalists, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000), and the agency
reasonably found Khan’s explanations for the inconsistencies unconvincing, see
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Without credible
testimony, Khan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Khan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the agency should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --