Vikash Chandra v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Vikash Chandra v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

429 F. App'x 640

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2011

Docket08-71047, 09-71894

StatusUnpublished

This text of 429 F. App'x 640 (Vikash Chandra v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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

Vikash Chandra v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 429 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 (“U”) 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. Ashcroft, 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; Kin 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).

*641 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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 **

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 (“U”) 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. Ashcroft, 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; Kin 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).

*641 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F. App'x 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vikash-chandra-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack