14-4424
Patel v. Lynch
BIA
Segal, IJ
A200 941 679
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
24th day of May, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
PETER W. HALL,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
CHANDRAKANT PARSOTTAMDAS PATEL,
Petitioner,
v. 14-4424
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Rakhvir Dhanoa, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General; Francis W. Fraser,
Senior Litigation Counsel;
Christina J. Martin, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States
Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Chandrakant Parsottamdas Patel, a native and
citizen of India, seeks review of an October 28, 2014, decision
of the BIA, affirming an April 4, 2013, decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) denying Patel’s application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In re Chandrakant Parsottamdas Patel, No. A200 941 679
(B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2014), aff’g No. A200 941 679 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
City Apr. 4, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
2006). The applicable standards of review are well established.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the
totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on
inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
2
record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart
of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Patel was not credible as to his
claim that Congress Party members in India attacked him on
account of his membership in the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The agency reasonably relied on an inconsistency between
Patel’s testimony that there were no elections in 2010, which
was the year he was purportedly attacked, and his friend’s
statement that Patel’s attack occurred just weeks after
elections. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
F.3d at 166-67. When Patel was confronted with this
inconsistency, he changed his testimony, stating that there were
elections held in September 2010, or one month after he was
attacked in August 2010. However, this testimony created an
inconsistency with his friend’s affidavit as to whether Patel
was attacked before or after the 2010 elections. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67.
Patel’s testimony was also inconsistent with his friend’s
affidavit as to whether his friend was harassed by the Congress
Party. Patel did not provide a compelling explanation for this
3
discrepancy. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
2005).
Furthermore, the agency reasonably found Patel’s
additional corroborating evidence insufficient to rehabilitate
his credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273
(2d Cir. 2007). There is no merit to Patel’s contention that
the agency should have provided him additional time to present
a corroborating statement from his wife (who remains unharmed
in India), particularly given that he obtained affidavits from
his friends in India during the more than two years he was in
proceedings before the IJ. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d
193, 198 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden
of introducing such evidence without prompting from the IJ.”).
Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That
finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
2006).
4
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5