Bala

Bala v. Gonzales

Good Law
228 F. App'x 766
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 20, 2007No. 05-73619California240 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Madhu Bala and her sons Mohit Chopra and Gagan Chopra, natives and citizens of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We conclude that we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Bala’s testimony and declaration were inconsistent regarding matters that go to the heart of her asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, the adverse credibility finding is supported because Bala failed to corroborate her testimony with easily-available, material evidence, such as her husband’s published newspaper articles. See id. at 1045 . Accordingly, Bala is not eligible for asylum.

Because Bala failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Bala’s CAT claim is based on the…

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.