08-74422•Gulzar Daudar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-74422Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit10 de jul. de 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GULZAR DAUDAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74422
Agency No. A097-545-931
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, GOULD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Gulzar Daudar, 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
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-74422 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476
F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Daudar’s testimony was internally inconsistent regarding his contact with
the truck driver who was a suspected terrorist and regarding the year of Daudar’s
first arrest. See id. at 741-42. Daudar’s explanations for these inconsistencies do
not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th
Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Daudar’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Daudar’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 would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also
fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.