Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02966/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General United States of America
Respondent
Atul Julka
Petitioner
Bhawana Julka
Petitioner
Mahesh Julka
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 14-2966

________________

MAHESH JULKA; BHAWANA JULKA, a/k/a Anjana; ATUL JULKA

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

Mahesh Julka; Bhawana Julka; Atul Julka,

Petitioners

________________

On Petition for Review of a Final Order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Immigration Judge: Honorable Michael W. Straus

(Nos. A200-176-416, A200-176-417, A200-176-418)

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 4, 2016

Before: AMBRO and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

and THOMPSON, District Judge

(Opinion filed: May 6, 2016)

 

 Honorable Anne E. Thompson, Senior District Judge, United States District Court of 

New Jersey, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
2

________________

OPINION*

________________

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Petitioner Mahesh Julka challenges a decision by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing the appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider some 

of Julka’s arguments and, with respect to those that we can consider, substantial evidence 

supported the BIA’s decision. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the 

petition for review. 

I.

Julka, his wife Bhawana, and their child Atul, are natives and citizens of India. 

On August 10, 2008, they were admitted to the United States with authorization to remain 

for a temporary period not to exceed February 9, 2009. They remained in the country 

well past this date. In July 2011, Julka, with the assistance of counsel, filed an 

application for asylum, naming his wife and child as derivative beneficiaries. In sum, 

Julka alleged that he was a member of the Congress Party and that he feared persecution 

from the rival Akali Dal Party if he were to return to India. He contended that, after he 

joined the Congress Party in 2000, he was threatened and beaten on several occasions by 

Akali Dal Party members and police officers loyal to the Party. The police also allegedly 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
3

detained Julka and his family for several hours in December 2005. While the family was 

in custody, police denied Julka’s request for medical attention for his first child and, the 

child died a few hours after police released the family. Julka also alleged that in 

December 2005 the police falsely accused him of vehicular homicide and that the charges 

appear online in a “national database.” In November 2011, Julka requested further relief 

in the form of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. 

After an April 2012 hearing before the IJ at which Julka testified and was 

represented by counsel, the IJ issued an oral decision denying the applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The IJ found that Julka 

was not credible in his testimony, that his asylum application was untimely, and, even 

assuming credibility, that he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution 

or a likelihood of his being tortured. 

Julka appealed to the BIA. It affirmed the denial of asylum because the 

application was untimely. It also affirmed the denial of withholding of removal and 

protection under the CAT because the adverse credibility determination was not clearly 

erroneous and, setting aside Julka’s credibility, he had not satisfied his burden of proof on 

his claims to stave off removal. This petition for review followed, along with a motion 

for a stay of removal that we granted.1 

II.

 

1

In January 2016, Julka submitted an unopposed motion to cancel oral argument and 

submit the case on the briefs. We will grant the motion. 

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
4

The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3) and we exercise 

jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We do not have 

jurisdiction to review the determination that an asylum application was untimely. 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility 

determinations, for substantial evidence, Butt v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 430, 433 (3d. Cir. 

2005), which is lacking where the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could fail to find” the alien eligible for relief. I.N.S. v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992).

III.

Julka first challenges the BIA’s decision that his asylum application was untimely. 

The one-year deadline for filing that application may be excused if the alien demonstrates 

“to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances 

which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary 

circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.” Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 

F.3d 184, 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)). We do not have 

jurisdiction to review the executive’s determination of whether an alien has shown 

changed or extraordinary circumstances, though we can still consider constitutional 

claims or questions of law raised in a petition for review. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 

F.3d 627, 633 (3d Cir. 2006). 

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
5

Julka’s asylum application was untimely (he arrived in the United States in August 

2008 and did not apply for asylum until June 2011).2In the application, he explained that 

in 2008 he had paid an attorney to prepare an asylum application, but the attorney later 

refused to file. Julka found another lawyer in 2011 to assist him in applying for asylum. 

At the hearing, Julka also testified that just before applying for asylum he found the 

allegedly false charges of vehicular homicide online in a “national database.” The IJ 

concluded that Julka’s application was untimely and that his claim of attorney negligence 

was not an extraordinary circumstance. On appeal to the BIA, Julka argued that the 

discovery of the national database was a ground for excusing the one-year deadline. The 

BIA concluded that Julka had not demonstrated changed or extraordinary circumstances. 

In his petition for review, Julka argues that the BIA “overlooked” his claim for 

changed circumstances as an exception to the one-year deadline and tries to shoehorn this 

argument into a constitutional claim that the BIA deprived him of due process. But “[w]e 

are not bound by the label attached by a party to characterize a claim and will look 

beyond the label to analyze the substance of a claim.” Jarbough, 483 F.3d at 189. The 

substance of Julka’s argument is that the IJ and the BIA “got the facts wrong” and we 

thus have no jurisdiction to review the timeliness of the asylum application. Id. at 190. 

Julka next argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination. Substantial evidence supports the determination, however. As 

background, the IJ found Julka lacked credibility because his testimony about being 

 

2 The one-year deadline for asylum applications “does not apply to requests for 

withholding of removal or relief under the CAT,” and Julka’s request for these forms of 

relief was not untimely. Abulashvili v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 197, 202 n.6 (3d Cir. 2011). 

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
6

targeted for reprisals by a rival political party was implausible. It was unclear to the IJ 

why police officers would act as agents of the Akali Dal Party and attack Julka with 

impunity over such a long period of time in order to force him to join the Party. Julka did 

not hold any leadership positions in the Congress Party and, by his own admission, he 

merely helped other party members. He did not know of any other Congress Party 

members or leaders that had been attacked. Moreover, many of the alleged attacks took 

place when the Congress Party controlled the Punjab state where Julka lived. Finally, the 

IJ explained why the documentary evidence Julka submitted did not support his 

credibility. For example, one of the alleged police reports noted that Julka was arrested 

illegally and the IJ found it strange that the police would admit to an illegal arrest in the 

police report. And a letter from the Congress Party lacked any supporting detail and only 

noted that Julka was a member. 

Finally, Julka challenges the denial of withholding of removal and protection 

under the CAT. To be eligible for withholding of removal, he needed to demonstrate that 

it was more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened in India on 

account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16. He can establish a presumption of a 

future threat to life or freedom by proving past instances of persecution. Id. § 

208.16(b)(1). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal because, even 

assuming that Julka had established a presumption of future persecution, the IJ found that 

Julka could relocate to another part of India. See Wang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 134, 139 

(3d Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence supported this conclusion. If Julka were a target of 

local police loyal to the Akali Dal Party, he could avoid future persecution by moving to 

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
7

a part of India where the Party has no foothold. Julka had argued that the false criminal 

charges prevented his relocation, but the IJ noted that Julka failed to present evidence to 

corroborate the status of those charges and that, in any event, he could relocate and still 

fight the charges in India. 

For protection under the CAT, Julka needed to demonstrate that it was more likely 

than not that he would be tortured if removed to India. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The BIA 

affirmed because, even if it assumed Julka’s credibility, the record did not establish the 

likelihood of his being tortured. Substantial evidence supported its decision because the 

IJ found that Julka could safely relocate to another part of India. See id. 

§ 208.16(c)(3)(ii) (evidence of possible relocation is relevant to assessing whether 

applicant has shown likelihood of torture). 

* * * * *

Because we lack jurisdiction over part of Julka’s petition, and as the BIA’s 

decision to deny Julka’s requests withholding of removal and protection under the CAT 

was supported by substantial evidence, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review. 

Case: 14-2966 Document: 003112286030 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/06/2016