Court Opinion

ID: 9401521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 15:00:49.690343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.299206
License: Public Domain

20-2837
     Patel v. Garland
                                                                                BIA
                                                                      Christensen, IJ
                                                               A209 433 766/767/768
                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                   SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
 3   States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
 4   on the 13th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7            JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 8            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 9            MYRNA PÉREZ,
10                 Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   RAKESH KUMAR PATEL, SUSHILABEN
14   PATEL, KISHAN PATEL,
15            Petitioners,
16
17                      v.                                  20-2837
18                                                          NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONERS:                   Dalbir Singh, Esq., Dalbir Singh
25                                      & Associates, PC, New York, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                      Attorney  General;  Anthony  P.
 1                                   Nicastro,    Assistant   Director;
 2                                   Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney,
 3                                   Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                   United    States   Department   of
 5                                   Justice, Washington, DC.

 6         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 9   is DENIED.

10         Petitioners   Rakesh   Kumar      Patel    (“Patel”),      Sushilaben

11   Patel, and Kishan Patel, natives and citizens of India, seek

12   review of an August 14, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a

13   September 12, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

14   denying   Patel’s   application        for   asylum,      withholding     of

15   removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

16   (“CAT”).*     In re Rakesh Kumar Patel, et al., No. A209 433

17   766/767/768    (B.I.A.   Aug.    14,    2020),    aff’g    No.    A209   433

18   766/767/768 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 12, 2018).                We assume

19   the   parties’   familiarity     with    the     underlying      facts   and

20   procedural history.

21         We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s

22   decision.     See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426

     * We refer primarily to Rakesh Patel as his wife and son were
     derivative beneficiaries on his application.
                                        2
 1   F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d

 2   268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).     The applicable standards of review

 3   are well established.    “[T]he administrative findings of fact

 4   are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

 5   compelled    to   conclude   to   the    contrary.”       8   U.S.C.

 6   § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513

 7   (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial

 8   evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact

 9   de novo); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir.

10   2009)    (reviewing   corroboration     findings   for   substantial

11   evidence).

12       Patel alleged that members of the ruling political party

13   in India attacked and threatened him because of his membership

14   in the Congress Party, an opposing party, and continued to

15   look for him after he left India.         We find no error in the

16   agency’s conclusion that he failed to meet his burden of

17   proof.    “In determining whether the applicant has met the

18   applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible

19   testimony along with other evidence of record.            Where the

20   trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide

21   evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such

22   evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have

                                       3
 1   the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”                    8

 2   U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23,

 3   28 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[I]n some cases . . . an applicant may be

 4   generally credible but his testimony may not be sufficient to

 5   carry the burden of persuading the fact finder of the accuracy

 6   of his claim of crucial facts if he fails to put forth

 7   corroboration       that       should   be   readily   available.”).       In

 8   determining whether to deny relief for lack of corroboration,

 9   an IJ should identify “specific pieces of missing evidence

10   and   show   that    it    was     reasonably     available,”   provide   an

11   opportunity for explanation, and “assess any explanation

12   given.”      Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31 (explaining that BIA’s

13   interpretation      of     §    1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)      comports   with    our

14   decision in Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198).

15         The agency did not err in concluding that Patel failed

16   to meet his burden because he did not provide any documentary

17   evidence to support his claim.               The IJ identified the missing

18   corroboration in the form of country conditions evidence,

19   letters from Patel’s fellow Congress Party members and his

20   brother, and Patel’s Congress Party identification card.

21   Cert. Admin. R. 18-19.           The evidence was reasonably available

22   either through research (country conditions) or because, as

                                             4
 1   Patel testified, he could have obtained letters from his

 2   fellow party members and his brother and produced a Congress

 3   Party identification card.       Id.    The IJ was not required to

 4   credit Patel’s explanation that his counsel was mistaken

 5   about the hearing date because Patel and his counsel were

 6   informed of the hearing in person a year before the hearing

 7   and received written notice five months before the hearing.

 8   Id.    And Patel did not subsequently produce the corroboration

9    on appeal.

10          Patel’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim also

11   fails.    For remand based on ineffective assistance, Patel had

12   to demonstrate to the BIA “that competent counsel would have

13   acted otherwise and . . . that he was prejudiced by his

14   counsel’s performance.”       Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d

15   Cir. 1994) (quotation marks omitted).         To show prejudice, a

16   petitioner must “make a prima facie showing that, but for

17   counsel’s ineffectiveness, he would have been eligible for

18   . . . relief, and could have made a strong showing in support

19   of his application.”     Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 326 (2d

20   Cir.     2020)   (quotation   marks    omitted).   Patel   did   not

21   establish prejudice because he did not submit the missing

22   documents (his Congress Party identification card or letters

                                       5
 1   from fellow party members and his brother) on appeal or

 2   identify   what   evidence   he    would   have   submitted   but   for

 3   counsel’s errors.

 4       The agency’s conclusion that Patel failed to meet his

 5   burden of proof with reasonably available corroboration is

 6   dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief

 7   because all three claims were based on the same factual

 8   predicate.    See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir.

 9   2010).

10       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

11   DENIED.    All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

12   stays VACATED.

13                                     FOR THE COURT:
14                                     Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
15                                     Clerk of Court

                                        6