Amrik Singh Aulakh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AMRIK SINGH AULAKH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70532
Agency No. A098-814-443
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amrik Singh Aulakh, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70532 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of
fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d
1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the inconsistency regarding whether Aulakh knew his brother was
involved with militants, which was the basis for Aulakh’s purported mistreatment
by police. See id. at 1043. In the absence of credible testimony, Aulakh’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Aulakh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and Aulakh does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --