Sharma
Sharma v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Khushi Ram Sharma, Joytika Sharma and Prashant Sharma, husband, wife and son, are natives and citizens of Fiji. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on an omission that goes to the heart of lead petitioner Khushi Sharma’s asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Sharma omitted the July 29, 1999 attack from his asylum application and from his testimony before the asylum officer, then testified to the incident before the IJ. This encounter with the police was central to Sharma’s claim of- persecution. See id. Moreover, the IJ properly considered and rejected Sharma’s explanation for the omission. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir.2004).