NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANJAYKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI No. 19-72048 PATEL, Agency No. A215-823-741 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District Judge. Sanjaykumar Prahladbhai Patel (“Patel”), a native and citizen of India, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence review means that we must uphold a factual finding if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). At his hearing, Patel testified to two incidents of persecution that he experienced at the hands of members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The IJ, however, found that he did not testify credibly and thus could not meet his burden of proof for obtaining asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ also found that Patel did not meet his burden of proof for obtaining CAT protection. Because these findings are supported by substantial evidence, we deny Patel’s petition for review. 1. Patel applied for asylum after May 11, 2005, and therefore the REAL ID Act’s standards regarding adverse credibility findings guide our review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). Specific and cogent reasons support the agency’s credibility determination. 2 First, there were inconsistencies between Patel’s testimony and the Non-Immigrant Visa (“NIV”) applications that he had previously submitted to the United States Department of State. The inconsistencies center on the nature and scope of his employment in India. At the hearing, Patel testified that he worked as a farmer in India, but in his NIV applications he stated that he was the sole owner of a business and, at other times, he was employed by a different employer. When confronted with these inconsistencies, Patel explained that he must have made a mistake and that he was not lying. Second, the IJ found that when Patel attempted to explain the inconsistent information on the NIV applications, he was evasive and sought to shift the blame to his father and the agent who completed the applications. On review, the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals