
    Sandhir KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 16, 2010.
    Filed June 28, 2010.
    Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Gary B. Randall, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandhir Kaur is a Sikh native and citizen of India petitioning for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Kaur principally contends that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, arguing that there are no inconsistencies or discrepancies going to the heart of her claim. Both the BIA and the IJ alternatively concluded, however, that even if Kaur’s testimony was credible, there had been significant changes in country conditions that would enable her to return to India without the likelihood of persecution or torture. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(A), and 1208.16(c)(2). That finding is supported by substantial evidence, because this record does not compel a contrary result. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). Kaur cites only an inconclusive sentence from the Department of State Country Report included in the record, and otherwise improperly relies on general statements in a later Country Report not included in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.”).

Accordingly, the petition for review must be denied.

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