Reddy v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Reddy v. Ashcroft

105 F. App'x 934

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2004

DocketNo. 03-71954

StatusPublished

This text of 105 F. App'x 934 (Reddy v. Ashcroft) 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

Reddy v. Ashcroft, 105 F. App'x 934 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Rannana Venkat Reddy (“Reddy”), 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 his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision. Reddy’s testimony was not credible because it was inconsistent and implausible. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (9th Cir.1999). Because Reddy failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Reddy is not entitled to relief under CAT because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to India.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Rannana Venkat Reddy (“Reddy”), 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 his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision. Reddy’s testimony was not credible because it was inconsistent and implausible. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (9th Cir.1999). Because Reddy failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Reddy is not entitled to relief under CAT because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to India.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. App'x 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reddy-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack