Khanuja
Khanuja v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner Khanuja argues that the BIA erred by finding that he and his family are not eligible for asylum. 1 Khanuja can establish eligibility for asylum only by presenting “credible, direct and specific evidence,” Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1995)), that supports “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... [his] religion. ...” Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.1999). The BIA found that Khanuja had not satisfied this burden because: (1) Khanuja’s testimony was not credible and (2) Khanuja did not demonstrate a nexus between the alleged persecution and his religion.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We affirm.
Khanuja testified that he is a Sikh from the Maharashtra region of India. He testified that he and his family fled India because of religious persecution by the Shiv Sena, a Hindi faction that advocates the removal of Sikhs from India.
The IJ and the BIA found that Khanjua’s testimony was not credible. Khanuja’s testimony was riddled with material…