Panag v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Panag v. Gonzales

148 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74470

StatusPublished

This text of 148 F. App'x 639 (Panag v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Panag v. Gonzales, 148 F. App'x 639 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Raminder Kaur Panag, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

We conclude that the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence because there were inconsistencies between Panag’s testimony and her documentary evidence which went to the heart of her claim, including whether the political organization she belonged to was commonly referred to as “AISSF” and whether she was married to a man who was killed by Indian authorities for his political involvement. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Additionally, the IJ’s negative assessment of Panag’s demeanor was detailed and cited particular examples in the testimony, and thus also supports the adverse credibility finding. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Panag failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

[641]*641Because Panag’s claim under the CAT is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that she could claim the IJ should have considered in making its determination under CAT, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Raminder Kaur Panag, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

We conclude that the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence because there were inconsistencies between Panag’s testimony and her documentary evidence which went to the heart of her claim, including whether the political organization she belonged to was commonly referred to as “AISSF” and whether she was married to a man who was killed by Indian authorities for his political involvement. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Additionally, the IJ’s negative assessment of Panag’s demeanor was detailed and cited particular examples in the testimony, and thus also supports the adverse credibility finding. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Panag failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

[641]*641Because Panag’s claim under the CAT is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that she could claim the IJ should have considered in making its determination under CAT, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panag-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack