IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60531

Summary Calendar

VENKATESWARA RAO PALLAPOTHULA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 652 060

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Venkateswara Rao Pallapothula appeals the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his requests for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The

immigration judge determined that Pallapothula’s asylum application was

untimely and that CAT relief was unavailable because Pallapothula had not

claimed that he would be tortured by Indian governmental authorities or with

their acquiescence. Additionally, the immigration judge found, based on

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 23, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60531 Document: 00512251941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2013
No. 12-60531

inconsistencies in Pallapothula’s written statement and testimony, that

Pallapothula was not credible. The immigration judge determined also that

Pallapothula failed to present other evidence to corroborate his claim.

Consequently, the immigration judge concluded that Pallapothula failed to

demonstrate entitlement to withholding of removal.

Pallapothula has briefed neither an asylum claim nor a CAT claim in this

court. Consequently, he has abandoned those claims. See Calderon-Ontiveros

v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Additionally, we deny the petition for review of the denial of withholding

of removal. We reject the contention that the immigration judge erred in finding

Pallapothula not credible. In making a credibility determination, the factfinder

may consider, inter alia, “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s

account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral

statements [and] any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without

regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart

of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) § 1231(b)(3)(C). Because

an immigration judge “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an

adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances

establishes that an . . . applicant is not credible,” we must defer to that

determination “unless it is plain that no reasonable factfinder could make” such

a ruling. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). 

Pallapothula points to no basis for rejecting the IJ’s determination that he

was not credible. Pallapothula’s conclusory assertions of truthfulness are

insufficient. Cf. Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 1986). The

inconsistencies in Pallapothula’s statements and testimony concerning alleged

attacks in 2006 and 2007 substantially support the adverse credibility

determination. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012). 

2

 Case: 12-60531 Document: 00512251941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2013
No. 12-60531

Pallapothula has failed to demonstrate “that no reasonable factfinder could”

have deemed him incredible. Wang, 569 F.3d at 538.

We conclude also that Pallapothula is not entitled to relief on his assertion

that he was deprived of the chance to provide corroborating evidence of his claim

of persecution by a terrorist group in India, the Naxalites. Pallapothula asserts

that the immigration judge did not advise him of the need for corroboration. 

Pallapothula cites no precedent of this circuit that supports his contention that

he should have been told by the IJ to present corroborating evidence. Moreover,

the asylum form itself alerts an applicant to the need to attach documentation

evidencing the specific facts on which his claim relies or to explain why such

documentation cannot be produced. Also meritless is Pallapothula’s suggestion

that the IJ failed to provide an opportunity to rebut the facts; the IJ noted

several times during the hearing that he believed there were discrepancies in

Pallapothula’s testimonial proof. Therefore, in addition to the opportunity

provided by the asylum form, Pallapothula had a full hearing that allowed him

the chance to make his case; all that Pallapothula and his counsel at the hearing

had to do was present credible evidence. A tribunal need not make a litigant’s

case for him. United States. v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because Pallapothula fails to show error in the determination that he was

not credible and fails to present corroborating evidence, he “does not have

enough evidence to show” a clear probability of persecution and thus to be

entitled to withholding of removal. See Dayo, 687 F.3d at 657-59; CamposGuardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 1987). Pallapothula consequently

fails to demonstrate that he presented evidence “so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find” a clear probability of persecution. 

Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED.

3

 Case: 12-60531 Document: 00512251941 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2013