Hardeep Kumar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARDEEP KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72744
Agency No. A099-864-614
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District
Judge.***
Hardeep Kumar petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
FILED
MAY 21 2014
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).
*** The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

(“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
The BIA dismissed the appeal by upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination based on Petitioner’s demeanor; the inconsistent, unresponsive, and
implausible nature of his testimony; and lack of corroborating evidence. These
findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1045–48 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Petitioner did not testify credibly, he did
not satisfy his burden to establish that he was persecuted in the past or faced a
threat of persecution if returned to India. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091
(9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner therefore also did not satisfy the higher burden to
establish a right to withholding of removal. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d
1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014). Because Petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same
testimony and evidence found to lack credibility, and because no other evidence in
the record compels the finding that he would more likely than not be tortured if
returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --