Dalwar Hunjan v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 483 F. App'x 387 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          OCT 15 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DALWAR SINGH HUNJAN; DALJIT                        No. 08-74468
    KAUR HUNJAN,
    Agency Nos. A097-602-768
    Petitioners,                                   A097-602-769
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,             MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 9, 2012 **
    Before:         RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Dalwar Singh Hunjan and Daljit Kaur Hunjan, natives and citizens of India,
    petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    application 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, including adverse
    credibility determinations, and we review de novo questions of law. Rivera v.
    Mukasey, 
    508 F.3d 1271
    , 1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for
    review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
    because Hunjan’s asylum application omitted his participation in a political
    meeting on the day of his arrest in 2003, see Kin v. Holder, 
    595 F.3d 1050
    , 1056-
    57 (9th Cir. 2010) (participation in political demonstration omitted), and the
    agency reasonably rejected his explanation for the omission, see Zamanov v.
    Holder, 
    649 F.3d 969
    , 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, substantial evidence supports
    the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the IJ’s negative
    assessment of Hunjan’s demeanor when confronted with inconsistencies in his
    claim. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 
    183 F.3d 1147
    , 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special
    deference” given to credibility determinations that are based on demeanor). 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).
    2                                      08-74468
    Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
    not credible, and they do not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
    likely than not that they would be tortured if returned to India, substantial evidence
    also supports the denial of CAT relief. See 
    id. at 1156-57
    . Petitioners’ contention
    that the agency failed to consider their CAT claim is belied by the record.
    Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that dismissal of their appeal by a
    single member of the BIA violated due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,
    
    350 F.3d 845
    , 851 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3                                    08-74468