FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 1 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PARDEEP KUMAR, No. 15-72281 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-572-484 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. Pardeep Kumar, a native and citizen of India, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (ACAT@). An immigration judge (AIJ@) denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (ABoard@) affirmed. Kumar petitions for review, arguing that although he has never been politically active, he suffered persecution in India because of his father=s political beliefs, which the government imputed to him. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and for reasons stated below, we deny Kumar=s petition. I. Asylum Substantial evidence supports the IJ=s determination that Kumar was not credible. Among other factors, an IJ may consider the applicant=s Ademeanor, candor, or responsiveness, . . . the inherent plausibility of the applicant=s or witness=s account, the consistency between the applicant=s or witness=s written and oral statements, . . . the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions).@ 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ found that in contrast to his detailed declaration, Kumar=s testimony was vague and lacked detail. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (A[E]ven though lack of detail is not expressly listed as a factor that may be 2 considered, the pre-REAL ID Act practice of looking to the level of detail of the claimant=s testimony to assess credibility, remains viable under the REAL ID Act as it is a >relevant factor.=@) (internal citations omitted). The IJ also stated that Kumar rambled and was visibly nervous, particularly when he gave a non-responsive answer, that he did not answer spontaneously, and that he appeared to be Amaking it up or buying time.@ She also observed that Kumar was emotional when discussing his parents= illnesses but appeared Aunconcerned@ when he recounted the harm that he allegedly experienced at the hands of Punjab police. When the IJ adequately references specific examples of noncredible aspects of petitioner=s demeanor, we will not substitute our Asecond-hand impression of the petitioner=s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness for that of the IJ.@ Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Board also addressed the IJ=s reliance on background evidence of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals