Sanjeev Kumar; v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

13-70062Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 3, 2015

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANJEEV KUMAR; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70062
Agency Nos. A088-431-422
A088-431-423
A088-431-424
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Sanjeev Kumar and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
AUG 03 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 2 --

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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on its implausibility finding, as well as the inconsistencies between
petitioners’ testimonies regarding the number of phone call threats they received
and the location of Kumar’s wife when someone threw a rock through a window at
their home. See id. at 1044 (under the REAL ID Act, the agency may base an
adverse credibility finding on plausibility, inconsistency, or any other relevant
factor in considering the totality of circumstances); see also Don v. Gonzales, 476
F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence supported the agency’s
implausibility finding). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70062 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.