Sundaram
Sundaram v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Premavathi Sundaram, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision. Sundaram’s testimony was contradictory and materially inconsistent with her application and written declaration concerning, inter alia, the year she joined the Congress Party, being beaten and jailed, and the pelting of her house with stones. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Sundaram failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed *686 to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 , 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
Sundaram’s contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance is a violation of due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 850 F.3d 845 , 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003).