HEERA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-10No. No. 20-70545

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief is affirmed.

Avtar Heera sought court review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's rejection of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The immigration judge found Heera's testimony not credible based on specific inconsistencies in his account of his political party membership and alleged police persecution in India. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported this credibility determination and that Heera presented no contradictory evidence that would require a different conclusion.

Because the credibility finding undermined the foundation of Heera's asylum and withholding claims, the court determined those applications were properly denied. Regarding his CAT claim, the court noted that while an adverse credibility finding does not automatically preclude such relief, Heera's claim rested substantially on his unreliable testimony. When that testimony was removed from consideration, only the general background information about conditions in India remained, which was insufficient to qualify him for CAT protection.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding
Whether credibility determinations support denial of asylum and withholding claims
Whether a Convention Against Torture claim survives when based on incredible testimony

Procedural posture

Heera petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Avtar Heera petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJs determination that Heera lacked credibility. See Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). The IJ identified “specific, cogent reasons” for the adverse credibility finding that go to the heart of Heeras claims for relief, including inconsistencies concerning Heeras membership in a political party and his persecution at the hands of Indian police. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). Heera points to no evidence that would compel us to conclude he was credible. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

2. The adverse credibility determination provides sufficient support for denying Heeras claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Jie Cui, 712 F.3d at 1338 & n.3; Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020). And although an “adverse credibility determination is not necessarily a death knell to CAT protection,” when Heeras CAT claim is stripped of his incredible testimony, “all that remains is the background material he provided concerning conditions” in India, which do not compel us to conclude he was eligible for CAT relief. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.