## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3067 D ILIPK UM AR P ATEL, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.
Pe tition fo r Review from an Ord er of the B o ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . A 097 838 086
S UB MI TT ED A PRI L 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu i t J u dge. Dil i pkum arPate l, a ci ti zen o f I nd i a, i l l ega l l y e nter ed the U ni ted St ate s i n Decem ber20 04 and w as pla ced i n re m ova l pro ceedi ngs in J anuary20 07. Pa te l c o nc ede d r emov ab i l i tyb uta ppl i ed f o r wi thho l di ng o fr emov alo n the b as i s o fpa stpe r se cut i o n. I ni ti al l y, he ass er ted thati n 200 4 he w as att ac ke d in Ind i a three tim es on acco unt ofhi s r el i gi ous a nd pol i ti calbel i ef s.2 N o. 08

- 3067 D uring a hearing be fore the I m m igrati on Jud ge (“IJ”), ho we v e r, Pa t e l s a i d i ns t e a d tha t he wa s a t t a c k e d fo r “bu siness reason s.” Th e IJ acc ord ingly den ied P atel’s appli cati on, and the Board o fI mm i g r a t i on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”) affi r m ed th atde ci si o n. Pa te l pe ti ti o ns thi s co ur t f o r r ev i ew. He raises the f ol l owin g four ar gum ents: ( 1) the IJ abuse d his di scr eti on by re fusi ng to co nti nue Patel ’ s hea rin g; ( 2) subst anti al ev i den ce do es no t su ppo r t th e B I A’s c o nc l us i o n tha t he d oes no t ha ve a wel l

- f o unde d fea r o fpe r se cut i o n; ( 3) the BI A er r ed by rej ec tingPa te l ’ s cl ai m s f o r a sy l um a nd r el i efunde r th e Con ve nt i o n Aga i ns t To r tu r e; a nd ( 4) he i s e nti tl ed to a new hear i ng be cause he r ecei ve d i neffecti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns elthe fi r stt i m e ar o und. Our j ur i s di c t i o n i s qu e s t i o nab l e wi th r e s pe c t t o s o me o fthes e ar gum ents, and w e fi nd the re st to be w i thout m er i t. W e thus dis m i ss i n partand deny the re st. W e fi rst take u p Pate l’ s com p lai nt abou t the IJ’ s r efus alt o g i ve hi m a co nt i nua nc e. Two m o nths b efo r e th e N ove m ber15 hear i ng, Pate l’s at torney m ade thi s r eque st
. The a tt o r ne y e xpl aine d i n a l et te r tha t he ne ede d the continuance beca use he h ad ano therhear i ng sc hedu l ed at th e sa m e ti m e as Pa te l ’ s he ar i ng . The IJ denied the re quest, and Pate l’s att or ney m anage d to ar ra nge thi ngs so tha t he co ul d appe ar . Duri ngthe hea r i ng, ho wev er, the att or ney o ffer ed a new re aso n w hy a c ontinuance w as st ill ne c es sa ry : P a t e l n ee d ed m or e t im e t o ob ta in ad d itio n al d oc u m en ts . T h e IJ w as n otm ov ed to ch an ge h is rul i ng, and the B IA expre ssl y found that the IJ had acte d w i thi n hi s di scr eti on i n thi s r espect
.N o. 08

- 3067 3 Un d e r th e l a w a s i tc u r r en t l y s t a n d s i n th i s c o u r t, we m ay lack j urisd iction to review ( as a stan d -al one m atter) th e d en ial of a re q u es t for a c o n t i n u an c e. A li v. G o nz a les , 502 F. 3d 659, 66 0- 61 ( 7th Ci r. 2007)
. W e r eco gni ze that the S up r e me Co ur tr e c e nt l y g r a nt e d certio rari i n a rela ted c as e, K u c a n a v. M uk a sey, 5 33 F
. 3d 53 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , a nd th u s it is p os sib le t h at th e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n in Kucan a may r equi r e a ch an g e i n A li as w el l. Se e Kucan a v. H o lder, 129 S
. C t
. 2 0 75 (20 09 ). Th er e is n o n ee d to h old Pa tel’s c a s e for Kucan a, however
. To the exte nt thatPate l i s a sking us to re vi ew the o rd ero fr em ova l, we have j urisd iction un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 2 5 2(b). A nd i f th e C ou rt rul es that w e would have i nd ependent j uri sdic ti on o ver th e d en ial of c o n t i n u a n c e, th at ch an ge w ou ld n oth elp P at el, b e c au se h is c laim fails on th e m er its . W e w ou ld re vi ew the denia l o fa continuance onl y foran abuse ofdi scr eti on . Has s a n v . INS , 110 F.3d 490 , 492 (7th C ir. 19 97 ). H er e, as th e B IA n ot e d , t h e IJ ac te d rea so n ab ly in r efus i ngt o c o nt i nue th e h ea r i ng . Pa te l ha d k no wn o fthe re m ova l pro ceedi ngs s i nce F ebr uary20 07; he h ad bee n r e pr e s e nt e d b y c o un s e l s i nc e Ma r c h 1 , 2 0 0 7 ; h e a l r e a dy had rec ei ved m ult i ple co nti nuances be f or e Novem ber15 ; the o ri gi nal r eq u es t f ora continuance did notm enti on any need f or extr a ti m e i n or der to ob ta in docum ents; Pateld id obta i n pol i ce r epor ts re l ati ng to the thre e att acks ; and Patelhas n ev er i denti fi ed w hat a dd i ti onal e v i d e n c e h e w o u l d h a v e o b t a i n e d w i th mo r e t i me . We ther efore dis m i ss thi s par t o fthe peti ti on f orl ack of j uri sdic ti on; i n the al ter nati ve, we deny i t f or l ack ofm er i t. N ext, we turn t o Patel ’ s a tta ck on the B I A ’ s co ncl usi on th a th e d i d n o th a v e a we l l

- f o u n d e d fe a r o fp e r s ec ut i o n,4 N o. 08

- 3067 ba se d e i th ero n pa stpe r se cut i o n o r futur e per se cut i o n. This fi n d in g i s cr i ti calbo th to any cl ai m f oras yl um that he m ay have and to hi s e ff ort to w in withhol ding of re m ov al. A n alien qu alifie s fo r w ith h old in g of re m ov al if sh e pr o ve s “a c l ea r pr o babi l i ty ” th ats he wi l l f ac e per se cut i o n. IN S v. Ste vic, 4 6 7U. S
. 4 0 7, 4 1 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; s e e 8 U. S
. C. § 1 23 1(b )(3) ; D o n g v . Go nz a les , 421 F.3d 573 , 576 (7th C ir. 2005 )
. A sho w i ng o fpast perse cuti on

— i nfl i cti on o f ha r m o n a cc o unto fa pr o te ct ed g r o und

— cre ate s a r ebu ttab l e pr es um pti o n o ffutur e per se cut i o n. 8 C. F
. R. § 2 08 .16 (b )(1) (i); D ong, 42 1 F
. 3d at 576- 77. Pa te l ni pped hi s o wn as ylum ar g um en t i n the b ud w hen he s peci fi cal l y wai ved i t during h is N ove m ber15 hear i ng. That was a re asonabl e thi ng to do, bec ause despit e the f act that Patelhad fi l l ed out an appli cati on f oras yl um , he ha d fa i l ed to subm i t th at appli cati on wi thin one y ea r o fhi s ar r i va l i n the Uni te d S ta te s an d thus was i nel i gibl e f oras yl um under the o rd i naryr ule s. S e e 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B )
. “ E x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u mst an ce s” c o ul d e xc us e th e f ai l ur e to a p pl y wi th i n the per m i tt ed tim e, se e 8 U. S
. C. § 1 15 8( a) ( 2) ( D) , b utthe onl y e xcuses Pat elo ffer ed w er e that he did n ot k n ow o f th e one-year req uirem en t an d th at he w as afraid of dep ortat i on. There ar e s eve ra l r eas ons w hy the se ar gum ents can not suc ceed
. Fi rst, as th e govern m en t po ints ou t, Pa tel’s wai ve r mean s th athe ne ve r pr es en te d thi s cl ai m t o the agen cy, and thu s he fail ed to exh a u s t it. Th at failure p re c lu d es ou r c on sid er at ion of t h is p oin t. Zeq i r iv. M ukas ey, 529 F. 3d 364, 36 9- 70 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. S eco nd , we have c o n s i de r e d th e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o fe x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u msta nces f orthi s purpose to be a f act-bound i nquir y thatN o. 08

- 3067 5 falls ou ts id e o u r j u r i s d i c t ion
. Khan v
. Fi l ip, 55 4 F
. 3d 681, 6 8 7 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. F i n a l l y, w e a d d f o r th e s a k e o fc o mple tenes s that n eit h er o fhi s e xcuses s tr i kes us a s a nythi ng ext ra or dinar y. Patelbas es hi s cl ai m f orwithhold i ng o fr em ova l o n pas t per se cut i o n. He a r g ue s th at th e th r ee a tt ac k s he suffer ed i n 200 4 were on a ccount ofhi s r el i gi on

— Hi ndui sm

— and h is pol i ti calact i vi ti es w i th Ind i a’ s Congr ess Party. The IJ acc epted Pate l ’ s t est i m ony that the att acks occur re d, but he f ound that busi ness re aso ns, not p olit ics or r e l i gio n, m ot iva te d th e a tt ac ks . Th e B IA agr eed with thi s fi nd i ng. Because the BI A ’ s o pini on adopts and s up ple m ents the IJ ’ s opi ni on, our re view en c om p a s s e s bo th
. P a vly kv. G o nz a les , 46 9 F
. 3d 1082 , 10 87 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. W e woul d g r an t th e pet i ti o n o nl y i fthe dec i si o n i s no t “ ‘ su ppo r te d byr ea so nabl e, s ubs ta nt i al, a nd proba ti ve evi dence. ’ ” M em a v. G o nz a les , 4 74 F. 3d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 2007). The r ecor d he r e co nt ains a m pl e ev i den ce s uppo r ting th e B IA ’ s r uling. On N ove m ber15 , 20 07, Pate l te sti fi ed in fron t o f th e IJ. D u rin g t h at te st i m o n y, P at el re p ea te d ly sa i d tha t he was a tt ac k ed be ca use o fhi s bus i ne ss . The f ol l owing ar e f our exam ple s o fsuch t est i m ony: 

### ! A [ Pa tel]: Th ey w ere

— i t was effecting [ si c ] th eir b u sin es s b ec au se I w a s d oin g b u sin es s in th eir ar ea th at w as th e le ve ra gin g o ft h e s h op s a n d all th a t, an d th ey w er e t h re at en in g m e t h at I sh ou ld l ea ve the c i tyo fAhm edaba d. S o the y wer e te l l i ng me

— they w er e threa teni ng m e t o l eave thatci ty because i t was effecting [ si c ] th eir bu sin es s. . . .6 N o. 08

- 3067


### ! Q [ Att o r ne y f o r the De par tmento fHomel an d Se curi ty] : S o these inci dents d i dn ’ t happ en to yo u because of your pol i ti cal bel i ef s, d id they

— d id i t? A: [ Patel ] N o, the i nci dents thathappened w i th thos e t w o peopl e were because of the b usi ness re as on s. . . . 

### ! Q [IJ]: W el l do y ou know wh y these peopl e a tta c ke d you ? A : [Pa t e l ] I t w as be c au se of th e b u sin es s, b ec au se m y b u sin es s w as d oin g v er y w ell ove r th er e, and thei r busi ness w as not doi ng, w as n otd oin g s o w ell. 

### ! Q [IJ ] : W el l wh y di d t h es e tw o peopl e threa ten and beat you? A [ Patel ] : I t was, i t was be cause of t h e b u sin es s re as on s. T h ey sa id m y b u s i n e s s is d oin g w ell an d th eir s is n otd oin g w ell. Furtherm or e, wh i l e P ate l ’ s a pp l i cati on a l l ege d that po l i ti cs mot i va te d the a tt ac k s, Pat ela dm i tt ed dur i ngthe hear i ng tha t he had l im i ted i nvol vem ent in pol i ti cs after20 02. H i s invol vem ent was so l i m i ted, i n f act, that Pa te l di d no t k no w tha t hi s po l i ti ca l pa r tyha d won th e nati onalel ecti ons i n 200 4. P at el a lso failed to offe r an y e vid en c e t h at w ou ld s u p p o r ta fi n d i n go fa l i k e l i h o o d o ffu t u r e p e r s ec ut i o n. H e cl aim ed atthe hear i ng tha t hi s f atherwarned him to rem ain in the U nited States b e c a us e the attac kers w ere st i ll looki ngf o r hi m , b utPa te l a dm i tt ed th ata ny fut ur e at ta ck s woul d o cc ur“be ca us e o fthe b us i ne ss . ” The Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n was w el l s uppo r te d i n a l l r es pec ts , a nd w e thus deny Pate l ’ s peti ti on f orr evie w fr om i ts deci si on n otto gra n t w ith h old in g of re m ov al.N o. 08

- 3067 7 Patelhas al so i ncl ud ed i n his peti ti on t o thi s co urt a cl ai m thathe qual i fi es f orr el i efunder the Con venti on Agains t To r tu r e. Li k e hi s asyl um c l ai m , ho wev er, he n e v e r r e q u e s t e d th i s r e l i e ffr o m e i th er th e IJ o r th e B I A. H e has ther ef or e wai ved i t. Fi n a lly, P at el a rg u es th at th is c ou rtsh ou ld rem an d th is case f ora n ew hear i ng be cause Patelr ecei ved i neffecti ve as sis ta n c e of c ou n se l. W h ile w e d ou b t th e m er it o fth is ar gum ent, we lackj uri sdic ti on t o consi der i t. Pate l r ai se d thi s i ssu e b efo r e th e BI A f o r the fi r stt i m e i n a m o ti o n t o r eo pen . He fi l ed th at m o ti o n a fte r pe ti ti o ni ng th i s co ur t f o r r ev i ew o fhi s fi na l o r dero fr emoval
. The BIA denied i t o n Decem ber24 , 20 08 , a n d Patelhas not fi l ed a pet i ti on f orr evi ew o fthatdeci si on. W i thout a se p ar at e p et itio n, w e la c k jur isd ict ion to rev iew th is ar gum en t. Se e Yo uk ha na v. G o nz a les , 46 0 F
. 3d 927, 93 3- 34 (7th C ir. 2006). * * * W e D ISMISSthe p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i n pa r ta nd D EN Y th e r emai nde r o fthe pe ti ti o n.

9- 16- 09