Shakila Rahman; Anis Ur Rahman Mullick 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHAKILA RAHMAN; ANIS UR
RAHMAN MULLICK,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71616
Agency Nos. A098-442-103
A098-442-104
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Shakila Rahman and Anis Ur Rahman Mullick, natives and citizens of
Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-71616
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Rahman’s testimony and written statement
regarding a central incident of the harm Rahman allegedly suffered from Muslim
extremists. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies relating to “the events leading up to
[petitioner’s] departure and the number of times he was arrested” went to the heart
of the claim). The agency reasonably rejected Rahman’s explanations for the
inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). 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).
Rahman’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --