Surender Kumar v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURENDER KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71100
Agency No. A088-129-637
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Surender Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71100
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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsistencies regarding police visits, whether Kumar’s
father beat his brother, and when Kumar sold his shop. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances).
Kumar’s contention that the IJ misstated his testimony with regard to the number
of times police visited his house is belied by the record. In the absence of credible
testimony, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does
not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --