JAYAKANTH BALASUBRAMANIAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-73339 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAYAKANTH BALASUBRAMANIAN, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 12-73339 Agency No. A200-883-652 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jayakanth Balasubramanian, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency as to alleged harm against Balasubramanian’s family, and the omission from Balasubramanian’s asylum application of his uncle’s candidacy and Balasubramanian’s personal harm. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). Balasubramanian’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Balasubramanian’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Balasubramanian’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Balasubramanian does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he 2 12-73339 would be tortured if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 12-73339
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.
