Nina Oganesian v. Loretta E. Lynch

Good Law
668 F. App'x 213
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 5, 201614-72348California294 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Ravinder 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies as to Kumar’s visa application, occupation, passports, and marriage. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Kumar’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanation for discrepancy even if plausible). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kumar’s corroborative evidence did not otherwise…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.