### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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 de c i s ion of the Board of Immigration Appeal s ( B IA) denying his r equests for asylum, withholding of removal, a nd r e l ief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration j udge determined that Pallapothula ’ s asylum application was untimely and th a t C AT r elief was unavailable because P allapothula had not claimed that he would be tortured by Indian governmental authorities or with their acquiescence. Additionally, the immigrat i on judge found, based on U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60531 Document: 00512251941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2013No. 12-60531

inconsistencies i n Pallap o thula’s written s tatement and testimony, that Pallapothula was not credible. The immigration judge d etermined also that Pallapothula failed to present other evidence to corrobor a t e h i s claim. Consequently, the i mmigration judge concluded that Pallapothula failed to demonstrate entitlement to withholding of removal. Pallapothula has briefed neither an asylum claim nor a CAT c laim in this court. Consequently, he has abandoned those claims. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS , 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Additionally, w e deny the petition for r eview of the denial of withholding of removal. We r eject the contention that the i m migration judge e rred in finding Pallapothula not credible. In making a credibility determination, the f actfinder may consider, inter alia, “the inherent p lausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral stat e m e n t s [and] a ny 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 c r edibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances

e s tablishes that an . . . applicant is not credible,” we must defer to th a t determination “unless it is plain that no reasonable factfinder could make” such

a ruling. Wang v . H

older , 569 F.3d 531, 538 ( 5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pallapothula p oints to no basis for r ejecting the IJ’s determination that he

was not credible. Pallapothula’s conclusory assertions of truthful n e ss are insufficient. Cf. Townsend v. INS , 7 9 9 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 1986). The inconsistencies in Pallapothula’s statements and testimony concerning alleged attacks in 2006 and 2007 substantially s u p p ort the adverse credibility determination. See Dayo v. Holder , 687 F.3 d 6 53, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012).

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

Pallapothula has fail e d to demonstrate “that no reasonable f actfinder could” have deemed him incredible. Wang , 569 F.3d at 538. We conclude also that Pallapothula is not entitled to r elief on his a ssertion that he was d eprived of the chance to provide corroborating evidence of his claim of p e rsecution by a terrorist group in India, the Naxalites. Pallapothula asserts th a t t h e immigration judge did not advise him of the need for corroboration. Pallapothula cites no precedent of this circuit that supports his c ontention that he s hould have b een t old by the IJ to present corroborating evidence. Moreover, the asylum form itself alerts an applicant to the need to attach documentation evidencing the spe c i fic facts on which his claim relies or to explain why such documentation cannot b e produced. Also meritless is Pallapothula’s suggestion that the IJ f

ailed to provide an opportunity to r ebut the f a c t s ; the IJ noted several times durin g t h e h earing that he believed there were discrepancies in Pallapothula’s testimonial pro o f

. T h erefore, in addition t o the opportunity provided by the asylum form, Pallapothula had a full hearing that allowed him the chance to make his c ase; 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 f

ails to present c orrob o r a ting evidence, h e “ does not have

en o u gh e vi d ence to show” a clear probability of persecution and thus to be entitled to withholding of removal. See Dayo , 6 8 7 F.3d at 657-59; CamposGuardado v. I

NS , 809 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 1 987). Pallapothula consequently fails to demonstr a t e that h e presented evidence “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to f ind” a clear probability of p ersecution. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft , 3 0 3 F

. 3 d 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