Walia v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Walia v. Gonzales

156 F. App'x 980

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72019; Agency No. A75-246-127

StatusPublished

This text of 156 F. App'x 980 (Walia 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

Walia v. Gonzales, 156 F. App'x 980 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Balwinder Singh Walia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between petitioner’s application and testimony regarding his political work and inconsistencies within his testimony regarding the circumstances under which he fled India. See id. at 1043-45.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 2002).

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

**

Balwinder Singh Walia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between petitioner’s application and testimony regarding his political work and inconsistencies within his testimony regarding the circumstances under which he fled India. See id. at 1043-45.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 2002).

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)

156 F. App'x 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walia-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack