Jyoti Raut Chhetri 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JYOTI RAUT CHHETRI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71437
Agency No. A099-779-934
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Jyoti Raut Chhetri, a native and citizen of Nepal, 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, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUN 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71437 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Chhetri claims she and her husband were attacked by Maoists in 2005.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based
on the discrepancies between Chhetri’s original declaration and her updated
declaration and testimony regarding the number of men who allegedly attacked
her, whether they beat her, and whether she suffered physical injuries during the
attack. See id. at 1046-47, 1048 (concluding adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the totality of circumstances). The BIA reasonably rejected
Chhetri’s explanations. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.
2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Chhetri’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Chhetri’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and she points to no other evidence compelling the finding that
it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to Nepal. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1049. We do not address Chhetri’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider the background materials in exhibit four, or to properly consider her

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71437 3
eligibility for CAT. See Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1307-08 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“When . . . the BIA conducts an independent review . . . this court
reviews the BIA’s decision and not that of the IJ.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Chhetri does not raise any arguments regarding the BIA’s CAT
analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --