Amandeep Kaur v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANDEEP KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70442
Agency No. A074-804-298
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 20, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amandeep Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding
of removal, protection under the Conventions Against Torture (CAT), adjustment
FILED
OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

of status, and voluntary departure. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is
conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of Burbano, 20
I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). Thus, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were
that of the BIA. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzalez, 490 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.
2007).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioner’s
asylum application was not filed within one year of her arrival in the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Although the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D),
restored our jurisdiction over constitutional and legal questions previously barred
by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), petitioner has failed to raise any questions of law or
constitutional claims on appeal. See Husvey v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2008); Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s claims for
withholding of removal and for protection under CAT based on the IJ’s adverse
credibility findings. The Real ID Act does not apply to Kaur’s petition, Kaur v.
Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005), but a review of the IJ’s
decision demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
2

-- 2 of 3 --

findings and that inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony go to the heart of her
claims, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA also properly affirmed the IJ’s rulings that petitioner was not eligible
for adjustment of status based on her failure to prove that she was inspected and
admitted when she entered the United States or the requisite hardship to a
qualifying relative for a waiver of inadmissibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
3

-- 3 of 3 --