Court Opinion

ID: 9365310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 19:00:27.136001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.648661
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60061        Document: 00516619449             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                              FILED
                                                                         January 23, 2023
                                      No. 22-60061                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                    ____________

   Bhavin Ramanial Patel,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A212 990 947
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Bhavin Ramanial Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
   review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal
   from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found Patel’s testimony to be credible, but

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60061      Document: 00516619449          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/23/2023

                                    No. 22-60061

   concluded he failed to meet his burden for relief because he failed to provide
   corroborating evidence. The IJ also noted Patel did not show internal
   relocation was unavailable.
          He contends: the IJ procedurally erred by failing to allow him to
   explain the lack of corroborating evidence for his claims; even assuming the
   proper procedure was followed, he provided sufficient explanation why
   corroborating evidence was not reasonably available; and he was assigned
   incorrectly the burden of proving internal relocation was not feasible.
          The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; its
   legal conclusions, de novo. E.g., Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444
   (5th Cir. 2001).     The substantial-evidence standard applies to factual
   determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and CAT protection. E.g., Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005). Under this standard, our court will uphold the BIA’s decision unless
   “the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
   78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “In other words, the alien must show that
   the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
   against it.” Id. The IJ’s ruling is reviewed to the extent it affected the BIA’s
   decision. E.g., Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Patel’s contention he should have been given the opportunity to
   explain his lack of corroborating evidence was not presented to the BIA;
   therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. E.g., Martinez-Guevara
   v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022) (petitioner must exhaust claim
   before BIA either on direct appeal or by motion to reconsider).
          A determination that an alien failed to provide reasonably available
   corroborating evidence is a factual finding, reviewed for substantial evidence.
   E.g., Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 769 (5th Cir. 2020). Even where an
   alien’s testimony is “otherwise credible”, his failure to present reasonably

                                          2
Case: 22-60061      Document: 00516619449          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/23/2023

                                    No. 22-60061

   available corroborating evidence “can be fatal to [his] application for relief”.
   Id. at 764; see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (providing where IJ determines
   corroborating evidence necessary, alien must provide unless not reasonably
   available).
          In that regard, the IJ found: Patel’s relatives in India could have
   helped him obtain corroborating documentation; and he had ample time to
   obtain it. He did not dispute those findings before the BIA (nor does he in
   this court). Accordingly, he fails to show the evidence compels a contrary
   finding. E.g., Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 769.
          The BIA dismissed Patel’s asylum claim solely on the ground that he
   failed to provide the necessary corroboration. Because that corroboration
   finding was “fatal”, we need not address his internal-relocation challenge
   with respect to his asylum request. Id. at 764; e.g., United States v. Pruett,
   551 F.2d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1977) (where issue is dispositive, our court
   “need not address the remaining issues”).
          And, because Patel fails to establish his eligibility for asylum, he
   cannot meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. E.g., Dayo v.
   Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Finally, while asylum and withholding of removal claims have
   applicable burden-shifting provisions regarding the possibility of internal
   relocation, CAT claims do not. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13, 1208.16. Rather, an
   alien seeking CAT protection has the burden of proving, inter alia, that he
   would more likely than not be tortured if returned to his country. E.g.,
   Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 911 (5th Cir. 2021). Any evidence
   that the alien could safely relocate internally is simply one factor considered
   in evaluating the likelihood of torture. E.g., id; § 1208.16(c). To the extent
   his challenge to the burden of proof on the internal-relocation issue extends
   to his request for CAT protection, because it was Patel’s burden to prove the

                                          3
Case: 22-60061      Document: 00516619449           Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/23/2023

                                     No. 22-60061

   likelihood of his future torture, he fails to show that assigning him that burden
   on that factor would constitute error.
          DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                            4