Kirunkumar Patel v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 17-2121 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2121 KIRUNKUMAR PATEL, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 16, 2018 Decided: May 3, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirunkumar Patel, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kirunkumar Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Patel’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the finding that Patel did not establish that he could not safely relocate in India to avoid future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the finding that Patel did not meet his burden of proof for protection under the CAT. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.