USCA11 Case: 22-10171 Date Filed: 11/28/2022 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10171 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANUP KUMAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216-265-926 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10171 Date Filed: 11/28/2022 Page: 2 of 14 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10171 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Anup Kumar seeks review of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals’ (the “BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (the “IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CAT”). Kumar argues that the BIA and IJ erred in making an ad- verse credibility determination because they disregarded the times when his testimony was consistent, and he offered corroborative evidence that satisfactorily explained any inadvertent inconsisten- cies. He also argues that any inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony were trivial and non-material. Finally, Kumar chal- lenges the IJ’s alternative findings that he was ineligible for relief even if his testimony had been credible. Because the BIA and IJ based their adverse credibility findings on specific, cogent reasons that were supported by substantial evidence, Kumar’s petition for review is denied. I. We begin with a brief recounting of the pertinent facts, as described in Kumar’s application for asylum and supporting affida- vit, and an overview of the evidence Kumar submitted to the IJ. The credibility of Kumar’s evidence is discussed in part III, infra. USCA11 Case: 22-10171 Date Filed: 11/28/2022 Page: 3 of 14 22-10171 Opinion of the Court 3 Kumar, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States on or about November 26, 2017. On January 3, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security served Kumar with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as being removable as: (1) a noncit- izen seeking admission without a valid entry or travel document under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); and (2) as “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled” under INA § 212 (a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. (a)(6)(A)(i). On June 4, 2018, Kumar filed a Motion to Change Venue in which he admit- ted the factual allegations in the NTA and conceded that he was removable under the above statutes. Kumar submitted an I-589 application that sought both asy- lum and withholding of removal under the INA, as well as CAT relief. Kumar’s application claimed he was “physically harmed and mistreated” in India, and that “the workers of Gurmeet Ram Rahim1 and [the] BJP party 2 attacked [him] thrice.” He claimed that he would be harmed if he returned to India because he was 1 Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is the head of Dera Sacha Sauda, a social group in India. In 2017, he was found guilty of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals