Patel

Patel v. Mukasey

Good Law
283 F. App'x 448
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 2008No. 06-75771California650 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dhrumil Patel, a juvenile citizen of India, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction to review this petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

In removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Patel was not a credible witness under the REAL ID Act credibility factors, and the BIA affirmed, finding that the adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. Patel’s testimony was replete with vague answers and inconsistencies, which under the REAL ID Act can constitute substantial evidence of a lack of credibility even if they do not go to the “heart” of Patel’s claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(l)(B)(iii). Because we are not “compelled” to conclude to the contrary, we affirm the BIA’s decision. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

The BIA also held in the alternative that even if Patel had been found credible and therefore statutorily eligible for relief, his claims would fail to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.