2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-22-2008 

# P at el v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2685

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P at e l v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 628. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/628NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 2685
AM RI SHBH AI CH I M AN BH AI PATEL; M AY AB EN A M RI SHBH AI PATEL,

P eti ti o n ers
v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 73- 575- 122 & A 97- 436- 283

on M ay10, 2007 I m m i gr at i on J udge: D ani el M ei s ner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 25, 2008
B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t22, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

P E R C UR I AM A m rish b h a i C h im a n b h a i P a tel a n d h is w if e , M a y a b e n A m rish b h a i P a tel, b o th nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndi a, pet i t i on forr evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) a f f ir m in g th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s (“ IJ ” ) o rd e r o f re m o v a l. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. T h e f ac ts are w ell k n o w n to the p arti es a n d w il l no t be re p ea ted a t l en g th h ere . M r. Pat el arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n the ea r l y1990s w i t houta val i d entr ydocumentand
w a s p la c e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s u p o n s e rv ic e o f a n o tic e to a p p e a r o n M a rc h 4 , 2 0 0 4
. Pat el ’ s w i fe, w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1997 w i t houta val i d entr ydocument , w as al s o pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . M r . Pat el fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on i n 1994. A ft er obt ai ni ng couns el , he w i t hdr ew t he as y l um appl i cat i on and appl i ed forcanc el l at i on of
r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b( b)
. H e cl ai m ed thathe had e s t abl i s hed cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es foratl eas tt en y ear s , thathe w as of good m or al
c h a ra c ter , tha t h e h a d n o c rim in a l re c o rd , an d th a t h is d e p o rta tio n w o u ld c o n stitu te
e x c e p tio n a l a n d e x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip o n h is tw o m in o r, A m e ri c a n -b o rn c h ild re n . M r s . Pat el appl i ed forvol unt arydepartur e. U pon compl et i on of r emoval pr ocee di ngs thatoccurr ed i n 2005 and ea r l y2006, t he IJ pre term itted M r. P atel’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al, d en ied M rs. P atel’sT he I J al s o deni ed vol unt arydepartur e forM r . Pat el , al t hough ther e i s nothi ng i n the 1 re c o rd to in d ica te th a t M r. P a tel re q u e ste d it. 3 r eques tforvol unt arydepartur e, and or der ed thatthe coupl e be r emoved t o I ndi a. T he 1 Pat el s appea l ed t o t he B I A
. I n M ay2007, the B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al , adopt i ng and affirm i ng t he reasoning an d co nclusi on s of t he IJ. T he Pat el s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. T heyar gue thatthe I J err ed i n pr et erm i t t i ng M r . Pat el ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and i n deny i ng
v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re f

o r M rs. P a tel w ith o u t a h e a rin g . T h e ym a in tain th a t th e IJ u n d u ly reli ed o n M r. P atel’s asy lum ap p li ca ti o n , h is I -76 5 ap p li ca ti o n , an d h is G 3 -35 A fo rm (re f e rre d to c o llec tiv e lya s th e “ 1 9 9 4 a p p lica tio n s” ) in m a k in g a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on agai ns thi m . T heyal s o cont end thatthe I J s houl d have he ar d t es t i m onyand
c o n s i d e r e d o t h e re v i d e n c e d e mo n s t r a t i n g th a tM r . P a t e l ’ s r e mo v a l wo u l d c a u s e e x t r e me har ds hi p on t he Pat el s ’ t w o A m er i can- bor n, m i norchi l dr en. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W h e re , as h e re , the B IA e x p re ss lya d o p ts th e IJ’ s d e c isio n a n d re a so n in g p u rsu a n t to M a tter o f

B u rb a n o , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . 8 7 2 , 8 7 4 (B IA 1 9 9 4 ), w e re v iew th e d e c isio n s o f b o th t he I J and the B I A t o det erm i ne w hetherthe B I A ’ s deci s i on t o defe rt o t he I J w as appr opr i at e. Shehu v. G onzal es , 482 F. 3d 652, 657 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. W e r evi ew the fa ctual f in d in g s o f

th e IJ , in c lu d in g a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f in d in g s , f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .In a d d iti o n to d isc re p a n c ies in th e d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e a n d tes tim o n yp e rta in in g to 2 Pat el ’ s dat e of e nt r y , t he I J al s o poi nt ed t o Pat el ’ s m i s - r epr es ent at i on i n hi s 1994 appl i cat i ons t hathe w as notm arr i ed. I n t he ca ncel l at i on of r emoval appl i cat i on upon w h ich h e n o w re lies , P a tel s w o re th a t h e w a s m a rrie d to h is w if e , M a y a b e n , in I n d ia in 1991. Pat el w i t hdr ew hi s as y l um appl i cat i on beca us e i tw as i nacc ur at e. B uti tappea r s t hat 3 he di d notw i t hdr aw orat t empt t o corr ectthe I
- 765 appl i cat i on orthe G 3- 35A form , even t hough t hey , t oo, r ecor ded hi s dat e of e ntr yas O ct ober1994. 4 A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. W e w i l l uphol d t he fi ndi ngs if th eyare “su p p o rt ed b yrea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd
cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” B al as ubr amanr i m v. I N S, 143 F. 3d 157, 161 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. M or eover , “the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F
. 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s concl us i on thatM r . Pat el ’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e as t o w hetherhe had s how n t en y ear s of cont i nuous pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he I J corr ect l ynot ed thatPat el ’ s 1994 appl i cat i ons , al l of w hi ch w er e s i gned

2
u n d e r p e n a lty o f

p e rj u ry, st a te th a t h e a rr iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s o n O c to b e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 4
. T he 1994 appl i cat i ons , how ever , confl i ctw i t h Pat el ’ s l at erappl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of
r emoval ( al s o s i gned underpenal t yof per j ury ) and hi s s w orn t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ng,
w hi ch s t at e thathe ent er ed the countr yon M ar ch 13, 1993. M r . Pat el des cr i bed the 1994 3 appl i cat i ons as “i nacc ur at e, ” att r i but i ng the err ort o t he fa ctthats om eone e l s e pr epar ed t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o rh i m . B u tt h e 1 9 9 4 a p p l i c a t i o n s th e m s e l v e s w e r e n o tc o - s i g n e d b y aI tappea r s t hat , even i f Pat el had fi l ed hi s t ax r eturns atthe appr opr i at e t i m e ea ch 4 y ear , t he evi dence t ended t o s how t hathe arr i ved i n t he countr yi n 1994 atthe ea r l i es t , t he fi r s tt ax y earforw hi ch he s ubm i t t ed a r eturn. T he I J al s o not ed thatPat el acknow l edged thathi s chi l dr en r ece i ved M edi cai d fr om 5 1998 t o 2000 and fr om 2004 “t o t he pr es ent ” i n hi s canc el l at i on of r emoval appl i cat i on, butfai l ed t o pr ovi de anyi nform at i on abouthi s as s et s i n t he U ni t ed St at es . M or eover , t he I J obs erved thatPat el compl et ed a l aborcert i fi cat i on thatw as fi l ed i n 2001, s t at i ng that he w as qual i fi ed as a che f, y ett her e w as no r ecor d evi dence thathe hel d s uch a qu al i fi cat i on . P at el argues t hat he shou l d h ave h ad an op po rtun i t yt o ex plai n these 5 thir d p artyp rep are r. I n deci di ng t hatM r . Pat el ’ s t es t i m onyw as ques t i onabl e, the I J al s o poi nt ed t o the l ack of r ecor d evi dence corr obor at i ng Pat el ’ s as s ert i on thathe ent er ed the countr yon M ar ch 13, 1993. A s w e have pr evi ous l yacknow l edged, the I J m ayr equi r e corr obor at i ng document at i on even w her e an a ppl i canti s cr edi bl e, and s uch corr obor at i on i s r equi r ed “w h ere itis r ea so n ab le t o ex p ec t suc h p roo f f rom a w itn ess a n d there is no sati sfa ctory
e x p la n a tio n f

o r i ts a b s e n c e .” O b a le v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H er e, t he I J found thatPat el had s uffi ci entt i m e ( t w enty - t w o m ont hs ) t o pr ovi de
corr obor at i ng evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s cl ai m of entr yi n M ar ch 1993, s uch as a l ett erfr om
o n e o f th e f rie n d s w ith w h o m h e sh a re d a ro o m in 1 9 9 3 , em p lo ym e n t p a p e rs, o r u til ity
a n d p h o n e b ills . M r. P a te l o f f e re d n o e x c u s e f

o r f a ilin g to p ro v id e s u c h d o c u m e n ta tio n . T he I J r ej ect ed M r . Pat el ’ s t ax r etur ns fort ax y ear s 2004, 2005, and 2006, beca us e they h a d a l l b e e n c o m p l e t e d i n 2 0 0 5 o r2 0 0 6 , a n d th u s , w e r e n o tp r o b a t i v e o f h i s d a t e o f

e n tr y. 4 A l t hough Pat el t es t i fi ed thathe w as fi ngerpr i nt ed w hen he e nt er ed the countr yi n M ar ch 1993, he al s o t es t i fi ed thathe us ed a di ffe r entname t hathe no l ongerr emem ber ed. 5di s cr epanc i es . T hi s ar gum enti s m i s pl ace d, as the di s cr epanc i es go t o Pat el ’ s good m or al

ch ara cter an d are n o t pro b ati v e o f w h ethe r P atel sati sfied the c o n ti n u al pre sen ce stan d ard f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. 6 Wi thoutthatname, the governmentcoul d notver i f ywhen Pat el ’ s f

i ngerpr i nt s wer e ent er ed i nt o thei rdat abas e. We concl ude thatthe i ncons i s t enci es between the 1994 appl i cat i ons and M r. Pa tel’s sw o rn tes tim o n y, a lo n e , su p p o rt th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty de ter m in a tio n a s to M r . Pa t el
. M or eover , the l ack of anyr ecor d evi dence corr obor at i ng M r . Pa t el ’ s as s ert ed dat e of entryi n M ar ch 1993 convi nces us thata r eas onabl e adj udi cat orwoul d notbe compel l ed t o conclude thatM r . Pa t el ’ s t es t i monywas c r edi bl e. Subs t ant i al evi dence thus s upport s the I J ’ s deci s i on t o pr et ermi tPa t el ’ s appl i cat i on f orcanc el l at i on of

r emoval , on the bas i s thatPa t el f ai l ed t o s at i s f

yhi s bur den of

s howi ng cont i nuous phy s i calpr es ence i n the Uni t ed S t at es f ort en y ear s pr i ort o the dat e upon whi ch h e w a s s e rv e d w ith a n o tic e to ap p e a r, p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 9 b (b )( 1 ) a n d1 2 2 9 b (d ). Becaus e P at el f

ai l ed t o s how t en y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i calpr es ence , f urthert es t i mony re g a rd in g th e e x tre m e h a rd sh ip p ro n g , h o w e v e r c o m p e lli n g it m ig h t h a v e b e e n , o r o n h is g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter , w o u ldn o t h a v e c h a n g e dth e re su lt. III
. Ma y ab e n P a t e l c h a l l e n g e s th e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f h e rr e q u e s tf

o rv o l u n t a ryd e p a rtu r e . We l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cl ai m becaus e i tdoes noti nvol ve “cons t i tut i onal cl ai ms or ques t i ons of

l aw. ” See 8 U
. S.C. §§ 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i ), (a)(2)(D ). Accor di ngl y , we w i l l denythe pet i t i on f orr evi ew f

i l ed byAm r i s hbhai and May aben P a tel.