Surinder Pal v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

discussion with his attorney, he would have produced the required medical

evidence of his inability to testify.

3 In support of his asylum claim, Mr. Pal offered his own testimony, which

was found incredible, as well as expert opinions. Because the experts’ opinions

were based on Mr. Pal’s now-recanted statements, the IJ declined to credit them.

The IJ’s ruling did not deprive Mr. Pal of the opportunity to present evidence on

his own behalf. The expert opinions support only his first declaration, which he

has since stated is not true and upon which he does not want his claim decided. He

cannot have it both ways. Without any credible evidence to support the version of

events he now puts forward, Mr. Pal’s asylum claim fails.

Finally, Mr. Pal’s claim that the BIA engaged in improper factfinding with

regard to country conditions is not well-taken. The BIA “‘relied on the predicate

facts found by the Immigration Judge.’” Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 922 (9th

Cir. 2012) (quoting Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 493, 498 (B.I.A. 2008)).

The Board specifically referred to Exhibit 4, which the IJ discussed and which

contains the very language used by the BIA.

Because…