USCA11 Case: 21-11132 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11132 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NARESH KUMAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216-176-730 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11132 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11132 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Naresh Kumar seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or De- grading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Kumar failed to exhaust before the BIA and has abandoned on appeal his argument regard- ing the adverse credibility determination that the immigration judge made against him. Because that determination is dispositive of all of Kumar’s claims and we lack jurisdiction to review it, we deny his petition. I. Kumar, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without inspection in 2017. In January 2018, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), (a)(6)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), (a)(6)(A)(i). At a hearing in September 2018, he admitted his removability under the Notice to Appear charges but applied for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protec- tion under the CAT. Kumar sought relief based on his fear of harm USCA11 Case: 21-11132 Date Filed: 12/17/2021 Page: 3 of 6 21-11132 Opinion of the Court 3 in India by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party because of his membership in the Congress Party. At the merits hearing in December 2018, the immigration judge rejected Kumar’s corroborating exhibits that he filed late without an explanation or showing of good cause to allow them into the record. As a result, the only documents on the record were the Notice to Appear, Kumar’s asylum application, and a 2017 State Department Human Rights Report on India. Upon review of the evidence, the immigration judge deter- mined that Kumar was not credible and that he did not sufficiently corroborate his claims for relief. Aside from the adverse credibility finding, the immigration judge also determined that Kumar was not statutorily eligible for relief on any of the grounds he sought. On appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. The BIA noted that in his appeal Kumar stated that he was credible but provided no explanation in support of that contention. And that a review of the record confirms the immigration judge’s credibility determination was based on the to- tality of the circumstances with no discernable error. Even assum- ing Kumar was credible, the BIA agreed with the immigration judge that Kumar had not established that he was eligible …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals