FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HINAL A. PATEL, No. 05-71627
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-491-301
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 15, 2009**
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hinal A. Patel (“Patel”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion a decision
of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Patel also
seeks review of the IJ’s finding that he filed a frivolous application for asylum. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review Patel’s claims for
asylum, withholding, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. See Singh v. INS,
134 F.3d 962, 966, 971 n.16 (9th Cir. 1998) (asylum and withholding); Shrestha v.
Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (CAT relief). We review under the
preponderance of the evidence standard the IJ’s finding that Patel filed a frivolous
application. See Ahir v. Mukasey,
527 F.3d 912, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2008) (adopting
the standard established by In re Y-L-,
24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 159 (B.I.A. 2007)).
Applying these standards, we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ
focused on three major faults in Patel’s application for relief and his testimony.
First, the IJ stated that Patel had failed to present credible evidence of his identity.
He entered the United States under the name of Abdullah Bodhiniya, using another
person’s passport. He had previously entered Great Britain under the name of
Grupa Singh, using Singh’s passport. While in Great Britain, he was arrested and
convicted of attempting to depart the country using another person’s passport. At
his removal hearing in the United States, the only documentary evidence of identity
produced by Patel was an Indian passport showing his address to be a location in
2
Texas where Patel had not lived. On this record, the IJ could well entertain doubts
about Patel’s identity.
The second ground of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination concerned
Patel’s statement in his application that he had been persecuted by the political party
in power in his home province of Gujarat, India, and that he feared to return as long
as that party was in power. At the time of his application and at the time of Patel’s
hearing, however, the party that allegedly had persecuted Patel had been succeeded
in power, in Gujarat and nationally, by Patel’s party, the Bhartiya Janata Party
(“BJP”). Patel nevertheless testified that he feared to return. He was also vague in
his descriptions of his party and its leadership.
Finally, Patel’s application form asked him to relate whether he had ever been
arrested, detained or convicted. He told the IJ that he had reviewed his application
and understood it. In the application, he stated that he had endured several days’
detention and beatings in India, but did not mention his arrest and incarceration in
Great Britain for fraudulent use of a passport. In his testimony, he stated that he had
simply forgotten that incident.
In light of these major discrepancies or false statements, the IJ had ample
reason to enter his adverse credibility finding. Patel’s explanations for these
discrepancies or false statements was unconvincing. These credibility deficiencies
3
went to the heart of his claims for relief. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The IJ’s adverse credibility finding accordingly is supported by substantial
evidence. It is sufficient to defeat Patel’s claims for asylum and withholding of
removal. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2001). Although
the adverse credibility finding alone does not necessarily defeat Patel’s claim for
relief under the Convention Against Torture, see Kamalthas v. INS,
251 F.3d 1279,
1280 (9th Cir. 2001), substantial evidence, including the evidence of country
conditions in India, supports the IJ’s finding that it was not more likely than not that
Patel would be tortured if removed to India. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Finally, the IJ’s finding that Patel filed a frivolous application for asylum is
well supported by the record. Patel made at least two significant and material
misrepresentations in his application, both of which the IJ found to have been
deliberately fabricated. Those findings are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 157 (stating preponderance standard).
The IJ gave Patel ample notice of the consequences of these misrepresentations and
an opportunity to correct them. See
id. at 155. No sufficient correction was made.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4
FILED
Patel v. Holder, Case No. 05-71627 JUL 19 2010
Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
I concur in the result.
