1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0419n.06 No. 08-3647 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
D E E P A K C H A

N D RA K

A N T ILA L P A T E L; G IT A B E N P A T E L, Pe tit ion e rs , v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ONPET I TI ON F OR REV I EW F RO M A DECI SI ON OF TH E B O ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : SI L ER, CO OK , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
CO OK , C i r c u i tJu d g e . D e e p ak c h an dr a P a t e l ( “ M r . P a t e l ” ) , an d

h i s w i f e , G i t a b e n(“ Mr s. Patel”), both c itiz ens of I ndia, petition for re view of a final orde r of the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) th a

t a f f ir med the dec ision of an I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) de nying the ir applications fo r w ithho ldi ngof

re mov a l and c la ims fo r Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Tor tur e re lie f on cr e dib ili ty

g ro un ds
. Be cause substantial and probative rec ord evide nce doe s not co m p el a conclusion contrar y to that
rea ched by

the I J , we de ny

the petition for re view.

I.No. 08-3647

Patel v. Holde r

Mrs. Patel conce ded removability befor e an I J in Buf falo, New York, on Fe bruar y 10, 2006. 1 After she re quested a

chang e of ve nue to the cour t in Me mphis, Te nnessee , the Memphis I J g rante d her r equest to consolidate the c ases. Mrs. Pate l’s stake in this petition is derivative of her husband’s argume nts
. - 2 - I n May or June 1998, Mr. Patel entere d the Unit ed S tates, by way of New York City , without admission o r p ar o l e. Petitioners’ Appendix (“PA”) 87. Six y ear s later, Te nnessee authorities
arr ested him on a char g e of sexual battery and kidnaping
. Respondent’s Appendix (“RA”) 192, 194. Mr. Patel later

enter ed a guilty

plea in Te nnessee state court on lesser char g es of simple a ssault and fa lse imp ri so nme nt. RA 19 3, 19 5. An e arl ie r a rr e st f or batte ry —th e dis po sit ion

of wh ic h is unknown—occ urre d in J anuar y 1999 in I llinois . PA 66, RA 200. On November 10, 2004, af ter Mr. Pate l completed ser ving his time for

the Tenne ssee
co n v i ct i o n s , t h e D ep ar t m en t o f Ho m el an d S ec uri ty (t h e “D HS ”) co m m en ce d re m o v al p ro ce ed i n gs ag ainst him before a Memphis I J , alleg ing that Mr. Patel violated 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 182(a) (6)( A)(i) , as “[a ]n a li e n p r e s e n t in th e U n it e d St a te s w it h o u t b e in g a dmi tt e d o r p ar o le d , ” and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2)( A)(i) (I ), as a

n “alien c onvicted of . . . a crime involvingmoral turpitude.” T he I J deeme d Mr. Patel subject to re moval on both gr ounds. RA 159
. Af t er wa rd , in J uly

2005, Mr. Patel submitt e d a p p li c a ti o n s f

o r a s ylum a n d w it h h o ld in g o f

r e mo v a l, in c lu d in g h is w if e a s a d e r iva tive
a pp lic ant. 1
After a hea ring on September 5, 2006, the I J issued an ora l decision in which he f ound the Pa te ls r e mov a

ble a s c ha

rg e d, de te rm ine d th a t Mr . Pate l la c ke d c redib il it y , an d d e nie d th e irNo. 08-3647

Patel v. Holde r

- 3 - ap plications for withholding of re moval and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). The I J order ed the Patels re moved to India. The B I A denied the Patels’s appe al, re ly ing on the cr edibility

finding to deny the applications for withholdingof re moval and CAT prote ction. The Patels now c halleng e that cr edibility assessment in their pe tition for review
. II.
Mr. Patel must demonstrate that his “life or fr eedom would be threaten ed i n [ I n d i a] on
acc ount of . . . [hi s] pol itical opinion” in order f or the c ourt to withhold removal. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435–36 (6th Cir. 2009). The a pplicant see king to withhold re moval fac es a string ent burden; Mr. Patel must e stablish a “cle ar probability ” that he would suffe r perse cution in India. L ikewise, in orde r for

CAT protec tion to apply , Mr. Patel must establish that “ it is more likely than not that [ he] would be tortured if r emoved to [I ndia].” See Kaba v. Mukase y , 5 46 F .3 d 7 41 , 7 51 (6 th Cir. 2008).
Th is c ourt

re vie ws le g a l c on c lus ion s d e no vo and fa c tua l f

ind ing s and

c re dibi li ty deter minations for substantial evidenc e. Shan Sheng Zhao v. Muk asey , 553 F.3d 436, 443 ( 6th Cir. 2009). We uphold fac t findings a s long a s they have suppor

t in “rea son ab l e, substantial and probative e vidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole.” Id. An I J ’s cr edi b i l ity deter mination constitutes a finding of fact and thus rec eives that defe rential review. Kaba , 546 F.3d at 748. Under this d ef er en t i al substantial-evide nce sta ndard, a n I J ’s fa ct finding s “ar e conc lusive unless any
rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” Kha lil i , 557 F.3d at 435No. 08-3647

Patel v. Holde r

- 4 - (q u o t i n g Gishta v. Gonzales , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d 9 7 2 , 9 7 8 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 5 ) )
. F urth e r m o r e , un d e r

th e R E A L ID A c to f 2 0 0 5 , w h i c ha

p p l i e s t o a

p p l i c a t i o n s
— s u c ha s th i s o n e
— f i l e d o n o r a f

t e r M ay 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , anIJ may base a n adverse cr edibility

finding on inconsistencies, inac cura cies, or f alsehoods “w ithout reg ard to whe ther a

n inconsisten cy , i nacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a

pplicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii). Patel asks us to deem his testimony cre dible and re mand for the B I A to consider the I J ’s alternative merits-base d finding s on both the withholding of r emoval and the CAT claims. We dec line to do so.
Th e I J set

fo rt h s e ve ra l in c on sis te nc ies bet ween Mr . Pate l’ s a sylum

a pp lic a tio n a

nd his testimony at the hear ing. Acc ording to Mr . Patel’s asylum statement, during the campaig n season fo r a 19 98 state -a sse mbl y

e le c tio n, me mbe rs of

the B ha rt i Jan a ta Part y (“ B JP”) thr e a te ne d to kil l hi m and har m his family

due to his canva ssing on be half of the Congr ess Party . PA 10. Mr. Patel’s statement nar

rate d that BJP m ember s came to his home a nd threw stones at him, and that Mr. Patel could not ide ntify his a ssailants beca use they cover ed their f

ace s. PA 10. But at hea

ring , Mr. Patel testified that he c ould see his assailants’ f ace s and could identify

one by the assailant’ s vo i ce . Id. W h en p ro d d edat t ri al a s t o w h et h er h e c o u l d s ee h i s as s ai l an t s ’ f

ac es , M r. P at el re ca n t ed , s ay i n g, “I ’m sorry I haven’ t se en their fac es.” Id. His testimony at t he hearing also descr ibed an incide nt wher e the a ssailants attempted to suffoc ate him with a pil low that he did not rec ount in his asy lum statement. F urthermor e, althoug h Mr. Patel testified that h e repor ted the beating to police, Mr
. P a t e l ’ s c o u n s e l c o u l d

o n l y d i r e c tt h e IJ t o a

2 0 0 4 c o mp l a i n t
. In l i g h t o f th e s e d i s c r e p an c i e s , t h e IJ
no te d th a t du

ring th e hear ing , M r. Pa te l w a s “ re pe a te dly unre sp on siv e . . . a

nd wo uld fr e qu e ntl yNo. 08-3647

Patel v. Holde r

- 5 - ch an ge h i s story

when c onfronted w ith inconsistencies,” a nd deter mined that Mr. Patel lacke d
c re dib ili ty . PA15 –1 6. Un de r o ur de fe re nti a l re vie w, we a g re e . Mr . Pate l’ s f a ilure to t e sti fy

c re dib ly undermines both his claim that he w ould be subject to threat s t h at would compel withholdi ng of
remova l, Kha lil i , 557 F.3d a t 435–36, and that he would be s u b ject to torture that would warr ant CAT protec tion, Kaba , 546 F.3d at 751.
III
. We deny the Patels’s petition for re view.