T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AN J E E V D E E P AK , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 04- 71637 A ge nc yN o. A 78- 673- 357 ME MOR AN DU M *

K IR A N D E V I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 72449 A ge nc yN o. A 96- 191- 210

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rderof the B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s S ubm i tt e d J une 17, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED JU L 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e L i ndaR . R e a de , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC ourtJ udge f or ** * the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof I ow a , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

2 B ef ore: T A S H IM A and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E A D E , C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. *** P et i t i on er s S anj ee v D ee pak and K i ran D evi , hu sband and w i fe and n at i ves an d citi ze n s o f I n d ia, p etit io n fo r r ev iew o f th e B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’s ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e lie f u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) . I. T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) de ni e d D e e pa k’ s appl i c a t i ons be c aus e he foun d thatD ee pak w as no tcr edi bl e. T he B IA af fi rm ed w i tho utop i ni on . D ee pak c ha l l e nge s the I J ’ s de c i s i on i n a l l r e s pe c t s a nd a l s o a r gue s tha ti f w e f i nd tha tthe IJ ’ s c re di bi l i ty f

i nd i ng w as i m prop er , w e s ho ul d add re ss the i ss ue of st atut ory e l i gi bi l i tyf

orw i thhol di ng a nd a s y l um w he n the E xe c ut i ve O f f i c e f orI m m i gr a t i on R evi ew consi ders st atut ory e l i gi bi l i ty and w hen the go vernm enthas notcl ai m ed th a t ap e titio n e ris in e lig ib le f o rr e lie f . T he I Jde ni e d D e vi ’ s appl i c a t i ons be c aus e he f ound tha ts he w a s not cr edi bl e and she f

ai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence thatdem on stra t ed pastpers ec ut i on or a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . T h e I Ja ls o d e n ie dD e v i’s m o tio n to c h a n g e v e n u e . O n ap p e a l to th e B I A , D e v i c h a lle n g e dth e I J ’s f in d in g s in a ll r e s p e c ts . A ls o , f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l to th e B I A , D e v i: ( 1 ) c h a lle n g e dab a s is for r em ov al ; and (2) argued that , by denyi ng her m ot i on t o chang e venue, the IJB ec ause the part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ct s of these ca se s, w e r epea t 1 the m he r e onl yt o the e xt e ntne c e s s a ryt o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. 3 d en ied h erco n stitu ti o n al rig h t t o co u n se l. T h e B IA fo u n dth at ev en if D ev i’ s te s tim o n yw a s c r e d ib le , s h e f a ile d to p r o v e s h e w a s e lig ib le f o rr e lie f o rp r o te c tio n . T he B I A a l s o f

ound no e rr ori n the I J ’ s de ni a l of the m ot i on t o c ha nge ve nue a nd f o u n d n o m e r it in D e v i’s c h a lle n g e s to th e b a s is o f h e rr e m o v e ab ilityo rh e rr ig h t to co u n sel . W e d en y b o th p et i t i o n s. 1 II. S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e I J ’s f in d in g th a t D e e p a kw a s n o t c r e d ib le a n d th a t a s y lu m r e lie f

w a s n o t ap p r o p r ia te . W e w ill u p h o lda n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng s o l ong a s the I Jorthe B I A pr ovi de d a tl e a s tone “ s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s on” that“ go [e s] t o the heartof [the] as yl um cl ai m . ” L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3d 959, 962 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). H er e, the IJci t ed anum be rof

s pe c i f i c i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n D e e pa k’ s s t ory , m a nyof w hi c h r e l a t e t o the pl aus i bi l i tyof

D e e pa k’ s c l a i m tha the w a s hi di ng f r om the pol i c e dur i ng the m onths l e a di ng up t o hi s de pa rtur e f r om I ndi a . T he s e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the h e a rt o f D e e p a k ’s c la im th a t h e w a s p e r s e c u te db yth e I n d ia n p o lic e b e c au s e o f h is a s s oc i a t i on w i th the D a l K ha l s apol i t i c a l gr oup. A m on g o ther f

ac t s, the IJi dent i fi ed the fol l ow i ng cond uctthatoccurre d w h ile D e e p a kw a s a lle g e d lyh id in g f r o m th e p o lic e : ( 1 ) h e m a in ta in e dc o n ta c t w ith hi s f am i l y i n N ew D el hi and m anaged t o m ee tw i th them i n p er son for se vera l4

ho urs; (2) he c on t i nu ed t o m anage hi s busi ness by ful fi l l i ng ce rt ai n con tra ctual o b l i g at i o n s t o cu st o m ers o v er th e p h o n e an dath i s cu st o m ers’ p l aces o f b u si n ess; (3) he vi si t ed the U ni t ed S t at es em bass y i n N ew D el hi atl ea stthree t i m es i n an e f f o rtt o s e c u r e an o n - i mmi g r a n tv i s at o th e U n i t e dSt a t e s ; ( 4 ) h e o b t a i n e das t a mp in h is p a s s p o rt f

r o m th e I n d ia n g o v e rn m e n t o n O c to b e r1 0 , 1 9 9 9 ; ( 5 ) h e v is ite dh is a c c o u n ta n t to c o m p le te a n in c o m e ta x f o rm ; a n d( 6 ) h e te s tif

ie dth a t h e w e n t in to h id in g a f te rh is th ir d a rr e s t in J u n e o f 1 9 9 9 , w h ic h is in c o n s is te n t w ith h is r e pr e s e nt a t i on i n hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on tha the w e nti nt o hi di ng i n O c t obe rof 1999. A l l of

the s e f a c t s a r e i nc ons i s t e ntw i th ape r s on w ho i s hi di ng f r om the p o lic e . D e e p a kf

a ile d a d e q u a te lyto e x p la in th e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s . T he IJci t ed other purpo rt ed i ncon si st enci es , and even i f w e a ss um e thatthey are ei th er factuall y u n su p p o rt ed o r i rrel ev an t , th e IJ’ s d eci si o n i s n ev erth el ess supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. T hati s, atl ea ston e of the IJ ’ s i dent i fi ed gr ounds f

orthe a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng i s s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd g o e s to th e h e a rt o f

D e e p a k ’s c la im o f

p e r s e c u tio n ; th e r e f

o r e , w e a r e b o u n dto a c c e p t th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g . I d. B e c aus e s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng, the B I A di d note rrw he n i tde ni e d D e e pa k’ s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. Se e i d. (hol di ng thatan al i en i s notel i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unl e s s he c a n pr ove i ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha the w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ount5

of a s t atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd ). F urther, the IJdi d n oterr w hen h e deni ed D ee pak’ s app l i ca t i on for C A T re l i ef because D ee pak fai l ed t o sho w “ i ti s m ore l i k e l yth a n n o tth a th e [ . . . ] w o u l d b e t o rtu r e di f r e mo v e dt o [ I n d i a ] . ” 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) . B e c au s e we d o n o td i s a g r e e wi th th e I J ’ s c r e d i b i l i tyf i n d i n g , we n eed n o treach D eep ak ’ s arg u m en tth ati s rel at ed t o st atu t o ry el i g i b i l i ty. III. S u b st an t i al ev i d en ce su p p o rt s th e B IA ’ s fi n d i n g th atD ev i fai l ed t o est ab l i sh pastpers ec ut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on fr om the Indi an po l i ce a n d th a t a s y lu m is th e r e f o r e in ap p r o p r ia te . D e v i’s c la im o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n is l i m i t ed t o u nenforced threa t s and pu shi ng by the Indi an po l i ce . E ven w hen c ons i de r e d c um ul a t i ve l y , thi s c onduc ti s not“ m a rke d bythe i nf l i c t i on of s uf f e r i ng o rh a rm ,” a n d th e r e f

o r e d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . L iv. A s h c r o ft , 356 F . 3d 1153, 1158 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed). T o est abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , D evi had t o d em on stra t e “ a s ubj ec t i vel y genui ne and o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e” fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n in I n d ia . A hm ed v. Keisler , 504 F . 3d 1183, 1191 ( 9th C i r . 2007) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). D evi fa i l ed t o est abl i sh ei ther a s ubj e c t i ve orobj e c t i ve f e ar . D e vi di d note s t abl i s h as ubj e c t i ve f e a r , be c aus e s he onl yc l a i m e d tha ts he w a s a f r a i d of a nd ne rvous aboutr e pe a t e d vi s i t s f r om the p o lic e — s h e d idn o t c la im th a t s h e f e a r e dp e r s e c u tio n o rh a rm u p o n r e tu rn to I n d ia .6

D e vi a l s o f

a i l e d t o a dduc e a nye vi de nc e t o s upporta n obj e c t i ve f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on u p o n ar e tu rn to I n d ia . B e c aus e s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha tD e vi ha d not p r o v e n p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , th e B I A d id n o t e rrw h e n it d e n ie d D e v i’s ap p lic a tio n f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. Se e T

am ang v. H older , 5 9 8 F . 3 d 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 9 1 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) (n o t i n g th atth e “ cl ear p ro b ab i l i ty” e v id e n tia rys ta n d a r d f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l “is m o r e s tr in g e n t th a n th e w e llfoun ded fearst andard for as yl um ”) . F urther, the B IA di d n oterr w hen i tdeni ed D e v i’s ap p lic a tio n f

o rC A T r e lie f

b e c au s e D e v i f

a ile dto s h o w “it is m o r e lik e ly th a n n o tth a t[ s ] h e [ . . . ] w o u l d b e t o rtu r e di f r e mo v e dt o [ I n d i a ] . ” 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 16 (c )( 2). A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e I Jd idn o t ab u s e h is di sc re t i on w hen h e deni ed D evi ’ s m ot i on t o chang e venue from S an D i ego t o S an F r a nc i s c o. A n I J , “ f

orgood c aus e , m a yc ha nge ve nue onl yupon m ot i on byone of th e p a rtie s [ .]” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 0 ( b ) . T h e I Jd e n ie dth e m o tio n to c h a n g e v e n u e in lig h t o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in te n t to c a ll aw itn e s s , w h o w a s lo c a te dn e a rS a n D ie g o . T h e I J’s d ec isio n p ro p er ly an d ca re fu ll y w eig h ed th e f ac to rs re lev an t t o D ev i’ s m ot i on . F urther, D evi do es no tar gu e thatshe w as prej ud i ce d o r und ul y burdened b yh a v in g h e rc a s e h e a r d in S a n D ie g o .7

We d e c l i n e t o r e a c h a n ya d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t s De v i r a i s e db e f o r e th e B I A, b u t d o e s n o t r a is e in h e rp e titio n f o rr e v ie w b e c au s e th o s e is s u e s h a v e b e e n w a iv e d . See Sm i th v. M

a rsh , 1 9 4 F .3 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . DE NI E D.