Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13239
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-997-015
NIKHILKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI PATEL,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 28, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nikhilkumar Hasmukhbhai Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the order of removal and the decision affirming the denial of his
Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 2 of 3
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231. The Board of Immigration
Appeals affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Patel’s accounts of
past persecution were not credible and that he had failed to establish that he was
likely to be tortured if he returned to India. We deny Patel’s petition.
Patel abandoned any challenge he might have made to the denial of his
application for asylum. The immigration judge found Patel not credible based on
his different accounts of persecution in his statements to border patrol agents and
asylum officers, in his application, and in his testimony. Patel contested the
adverse credibility ruling in his appeal to the Board, where he argued that he was
“confused by many of the questions he was asked” about the inconsistencies, but in
his petition, Patel focuses exclusively on the merits of his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. Patel abandoned his challenge to the adverse credibility
ruling. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir.
2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is
abandoned.”).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Patel is unlikely to be
tortured if he returns to India. The record is bereft of evidence that Patel would
likely be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Patel argues that he is entitled to
2
Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3
relief based on information in his declaration, but we cannot consider a document
that Patel prepared after the Board dismissed his appeal. We are required to
“decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of
removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
We DENY Patel’s petition for review.
3