Case: 18-14940 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14940 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-445-965 PRATHMESHKUMAR PATEL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 2, 2019) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14940 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 2 of 8 Prathmeshkumar Patel seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I. Patel is a citizen of India who entered the United States without inspection in August 2015. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on political opinion, claiming that while involved with the Congress Party in India he was repeatedly threatened and attacked by members of the rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He attached corroborating evidence to his application that included a letter from the Congress Party saying that he had been an active party worker since 2011, the Wikipedia page for the BJP, several articles describing the differences between the BJP and the Congress Party, and two reports on human rights in India. One of those reports described incidents of vigilante groups associated with the BJP attacking religious minorities, but not members of the Congress Party. Patel testified at his merits hearing about two attacks that he allegedly suffered at the hands of BJP members, and the Immigration Judge questioned him about inconsistencies between his testimony and descriptions of the attacks in his asylum application. The IJ also raised concerns when Patel testified that his son 2 Case: 18-14940 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 3 of 8 had an encounter in a park with BJP members who said they would make his son an orphan, after which his son asked him what “orphan” meant. The IJ found that story unbelievable because Patel’s son would have been only 11 months old at the time. Patel’s counsel asked for more time to obtain additional corroborating evidence in light of these inconsistencies, but the IJ denied the request. The IJ then issued an oral decision denying Patel’s application. The IJ found that Patel’s testimony differed from his written statement and credible fear interview and that he did not provide any convincing corroborating evidence. The IJ made an adverse credibility determination based on three specific inconsistencies: (1) in his statement Patel said that after the first alleged attack in September 2013 his wife treated his nose with ice, but in his testimony Patel claimed that he was treated by his family physician afterwards; (2) Patel testified that his son asked him what “orphan” meant, even though his son would have been 11 months old at that time; and (3) during his testimony Patel testified that he was threatened by the police ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals