Kaur v. Blanche

── Kaur v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASWINDER KAUR; J. S.; R. K., No. 25-2512 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A243-086-228 A243-086-229 v. A243-086-230 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Jaswinder Kaur (Kaur) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Kaur’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on an adverse credibility finding. 1 We deny the petition. “We review the agency’s factual findings, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. . . .” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s decision, we consider both decisions.” Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The declaration Kaur filed with her initial asylum application omitted that her husband was arrested and beaten by the police in India in 2009 and 2013. Although Kaur included her husband’s 2014 arrest in this declaration, she omitted important details including that he was beaten and tortured until “almost half- dead,” and that the police threatened to “take him straight to the bank of a canal and shoot him” if he did not leave the Mann Party. Kaur’s explanation for these omissions was that her first counsel advised her to omit these details. But this explanation is not reasonable because Kaur could not explain why her counsel would recommend omitting these key details, and Kaur did not file a bar complaint against him. 1 Kaur filed her application on behalf of herself and derivative claims for her two minor children, J.S. and R.K. J.S. and R.K. filed their own separate applications, which were based on the same facts as Kaur’s application. 2 25-2512  “[O]missions are probative of credibility to the extent that later disclosures, if credited, would bolster an earlier, and typically weaker, asylum application. . . .” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Kaur’s amended declaration and testimony “tell a much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than [her] initial application.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). And the additional, graphic details of Kaur’s husband’s 2014 arrest are the “type of later embellishment [that] reflects poorly on a petitioner’s credibility.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2022). Kaur’s amended declaration was also inconsistent with her testimony because it describes her husband’s 2013 arrest in the first pe