Madan
Madan v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Jagdeep Madan (“Madan”), a citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In that decision the BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Madan was not entitled to asylum ( 8 U.S.C. § 1158 ), withholding of removal ( 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)), or relief under the Convention Against Torture. Specifically, the BIA upheld the IJ’s conclusion that Madan was not entitled to relief because (i) he was not credible, and (ii) even if credible, he failed to prove persecution “on account of’ a protected ground.
The IJ’s finding that Madan was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). As the IJ noted, Madan stated he was “mercilessly” beaten by local police on at least three separate occasions. And yet Madan never sought or received any formal medical treatment for *585 any of these alleged beatings. This single observation is sufficient to sustain the IJ’s determination. Cf. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (conduct inconsistent with persecution is sufficient to support adverse credibility finding).