Dalwar Singh Hunjan; Daljit Kaur Hunjan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DALWAR SINGH HUNJAN; DALJIT
KAUR HUNJAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74468
Agency Nos. A097-602-768
A097-602-769
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Dalwar Singh Hunjan and Daljit Kaur Hunjan, natives and citizens of India,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 08-74468
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including adverse
credibility determinations, and we review de novo questions of law. Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Hunjan’s asylum application omitted his participation in a political
meeting on the day of his arrest in 2003, see Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-
57 (9th Cir. 2010) (participation in political demonstration omitted), and the
agency reasonably rejected his explanation for the omission, see Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the IJ’s negative
assessment of Hunjan’s demeanor when confronted with inconsistencies in his
claim. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special
deference” given to credibility determinations that are based on demeanor). In the
absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 08-74468
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and they do not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not that they would be tortured if returned to India, substantial evidence
also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57. Petitioners’ contention
that the agency failed to consider their CAT claim is belied by the record.
Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that dismissal of their appeal by a
single member of the BIA violated due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,
350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --