Gill v. Holder, 101614 FED9, 10-72243
|Party Name:||SURINDER GILL, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: IKUTA, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 16, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 8, 2014 [**] San Francisco, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A079-570-776
Petitioner Surinder Gill, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We lack jurisdiction to consider the agency's determination that Gill is ineligible for asylum because Gill failed to demonstrate that he filed his asylum application within one year of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(3); 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). We have jurisdiction to review the remaining claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA's factual findings for substantial evidence, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), we deny the petition.
Gill argues that substantial evidence does not support either of the grounds on which the immigration judge denied him relief: adverse credibility and lending material support to a terrorist organization. Because the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination alone supports denial of Gill's withholding of removal and CAT claims, see, e.g., Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010), and we find substantial evidence supports that determination, we deny Gill's petition on that basis and need not reach the additional ground for denial.
In a pre-REAL ID Act case such as this one, we will uphold an adverse credibility finding as long as one of the identified grounds underlying an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of a petitioner's claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, at least two grounds going to the heart of Gill's claim were supported by substantial evidence.
First, Gill failed to testify credibly to establish his identity. Gill submitted multiple documents with different names but could not reasonably explain these discrepancies. See Farah v....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP