NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANJAYKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI 

PATEL, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72048 

Agency No. A215-823-741 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 8, 2020**

Portland, Oregon

Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District 

Judge.

Sanjaykumar Prahladbhai Patel (“Patel”), a native and citizen of India, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision 

affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s 

factual findings for substantial evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 

(9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence review means that we must uphold a factual 

finding if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the 

record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). 

At his hearing, Patel testified to two incidents of persecution that he 

experienced at the hands of members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The IJ, 

however, found that he did not testify credibly and thus could not meet his burden 

of proof for obtaining asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ also found that 

Patel did not meet his burden of proof for obtaining CAT protection. Because 

these findings are supported by substantial evidence, we deny Patel’s petition for 

review.

1. Patel applied for asylum after May 11, 2005, and therefore the REAL ID 

Act’s standards regarding adverse credibility findings guide our review. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40

(9th Cir. 2010). 

Specific and cogent reasons support the agency’s credibility determination. 
3 

First, there were inconsistencies between Patel’s testimony and the Non-Immigrant 

Visa (“NIV”) applications that he had previously submitted to the United States 

Department of State. The inconsistencies center on the nature and scope of his 

employment in India. At the hearing, Patel testified that he worked as a farmer in 

India, but in his NIV applications he stated that he was the sole owner of a business 

and, at other times, he was employed by a different employer. When confronted 

with these inconsistencies, Patel explained that he must have made a mistake and 

that he was not lying. Second, the IJ found that when Patel attempted to explain 

the inconsistent information on the NIV applications, he was evasive and sought to 

shift the blame to his father and the agent who completed the applications. On 

review, the BIA concluded that Patel’s evasive answers undermined his credibility. 

These specific, cogent inconsistencies between his oral testimony and prior NIV 

applications were sufficient to discredit Patel. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 

1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial 

evidence . . . .”). The record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See 

Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2018). 

2. Patel also cannot succeed on his CAT claim. Patel argues that we should 

reverse the agency’s denial of CAT relief because the BIA relied only on the 

adverse credibility finding and ignored his potential for future torture. Although 
4 

the adverse credibility determination does not foreclose Patel’s CAT claim, 

Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001), he did not present 

sufficient evidence to compel reversal of the agency’s torture-related findings.

Both the IJ and BIA considered the country condition information that Patel 

submitted to support his assertion that he would be tortured if he returned to India. 

In rejecting Patel’s CAT claim, the IJ noted that he had reviewed the record and 

there was not “sufficient credible evidence to establish that [Patel would] be 

specifically targeted for torture in the future.” On appeal, the BIA concluded that 

Patel “did not present credible evidence that he was tortured in India” and 

“agree[d] that he has not met his burden to show that it is more likely than not that 

he would be tortured there by, or with the consent or acquiescence . . . of, a public 

official or an individual acting in an official capacity” in the future. Patel has not 

identified anything in the record that calls into question the IJ’s and BIA’s analysis 

of the record. We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s denial of CAT relief.

DENIED.