FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMESH PATEL, No. 09-72300
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-577-314
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Ramesh Patel (“Patel”) is a native and citizen of India who is on his second
journey through the American immigration system. His first journey ended when
he withdrew his asylum application and accepted voluntary departure. He now
appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) refusal to allow him to adjust
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
his status because he failed to depart during his allotted period.1 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny his petition for review.
“Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, appellate
review is limited to the BIA's decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is
expressly adopted.” Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010). The
court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009).
If Patel did not depart within the specified period, he is ineligible to adjust
his status. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Patel bears “the burden of proof to establish that
. . . [he] satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; and . . . that [he] merits a
favorable exercise of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). Here, Patel
offered unverified copies of (1) a receipt for an airline ticket, (2) a stamp in a
passport, and (3) a customs receipt from India. The Government countered with
(1) a statement from the airline that Patel did not travel on their airplane; and (2)
a final administrative decision that Patel breached his voluntary departure bond
by not leaving during the allotted time.
1
Earlier in these proceedings, Patel also sought asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but
he has waived those claims before this court. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1011 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1996)).
2
We conclude Patel’s evidence could support but does not compel “any
reasonable adjudicator” to decide in his favor. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Therefore, the BIA’s factual finding that Patel did not comply with the terms of
his voluntary departure is conclusive. Id.
PETITION DENIED.
3