Vikash Chandra v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 429 F. App'x 640 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIKASH CHANDRA, No. 08-71047
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-399-978
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
NANDA VASHNI CHAND, No. 09-71894
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-399-977
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Vikash Chandra and Nanda Vashni Chand, natives and citizens of Fiji,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal
determinations. Li v. Aschroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. de Jesus Melendez v.
Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Chandra and Chand testified inconsistently about the central incident of
harm they allegedly suffered. See Li, 378 F.3d at 964; Kim v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
08-71047
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Fiji,
their CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion
to remand because the evidence petitioners submitted was insufficient to establish
a claim in light of the adverse credibility finding. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d
865, 867 (9th Cir. 1988); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-71047