FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRASHANTH RAMACHANDRA, No. 11-72260
Petitioner, Agency No. A89 303 519
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Prashanth Ramachandra (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a final order of
removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Cortez-Pineda v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Petitioner filed a written application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture. At his removal hearing, the
immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s application because he found
Petitioner not credible. Given his adverse credibility finding, the IJ concluded that
Ramachandra had failed to provide credible evidence supporting his applications
for relief. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and
concluded that Petitioner had failed to establish any ground for relief.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. First,
there was a notable inconsistency between Petitioner’s written and oral statements:
His written application for asylum and withholding of removal stated that
Petitioner had been detained by the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) social activity
group, but this allegation was never repeated or supported in any other written
statement or at his removal hearing. Because Petitioner claimed eligibility for
asylum and withholding of removal on account of persecution by the BJP, the
discrepancy regarding his treatment at the hands of the BJP provides support for
the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (stating
that the trier of fact should consider the consistency between the applicant’s written
and oral statements when assessing credibility); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming an adverse credibility finding when the petitioners
failed to mention in their written application their participation in a key political
2
demonstration that they later claimed was the basis for their arrests and subsequent
persecution).
Second, Petitioner admitted during his removal hearing that he had twice
lied to immigration officials in order to obtain visitor’s visas to the United States,
which further supports the adverse credibility finding. See Singh v. Holder, 643
F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration
authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). Third,
Petitioner admitted that his true motive for coming to the United States was to
receive help from his sister for his degenerative health condition. This admission
undercuts Petitioner’s allegation of past persecution and fear of future persecution,
and supports the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Finally, Petitioner’s failure to present corroborating evidence that other
individuals in his party were similarly targeted by the BJP, or to show that he could
not reasonably obtain such evidence, further supports the adverse credibility
finding. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that
failure to present corroborating evidence or explain the failure to do so can support
an adverse credibility finding), abrogated by statute on other grounds as stated in
Shresta v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). For these reasons, the
adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
3
The BIA correctly held that, without credible testimony or other persuasive
evidence, Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish entitlement to asylum,
withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.
4