Amandeep Chouhan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Amandeep Chouhan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

580 F. App'x 547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2014

Docket10-73245

StatusUnpublished

This text of 580 F. App'x 547 (Amandeep Chouhan v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amandeep Chouhan v. Eric Holder, Jr., 580 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Amandeep Singh Chouhan, a native and citizen of India, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Chouhan claims that he and his family were persecuted in India because of his political activities. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Chouhan’s application on the ground that he lacked credibility, and the BIA affirmed.

The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.2013). Chouhan testified before the IJ that he had been severely beaten following his second arrest by police, but he failed to mention in his declaration this “dramatic” and “pivotal” event. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003). He also failed to provide any corroboration for his claim that he was beaten or that he received medical attention afterwards. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii). In addition, he misidentified the party of the political candidate for whom he claimed to have campaigned.

Chouhan also argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by conducting an internet search during his hearing to determine the party affiliation of the candidate whom he allegedly supported. Chouhan stated that he had no objection to *548 the search when asked by the IJ. See In re Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n. 2 (B.I.A.1996) (en banc) (holding that issues not raised before the IJ are waived). Moreover, Chouhan cannot show prejudice. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir.2011) (per cu-riam). He also had the opportunity to introduce contrary evidence, but did not do so. Chouhan therefore was not deprived of “a full and fair hearing of his claims.” Id. at 1191 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Chouhan’s petition for review is DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Amandeep Singh Chouhan, a native and citizen of India, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Chouhan claims that he and his family were persecuted in India because of his political activities. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Chouhan’s application on the ground that he lacked credibility, and the BIA affirmed.

The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.2013). Chouhan testified before the IJ that he had been severely beaten following his second arrest by police, but he failed to mention in his declaration this “dramatic” and “pivotal” event. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003). He also failed to provide any corroboration for his claim that he was beaten or that he received medical attention afterwards. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii). In addition, he misidentified the party of the political candidate for whom he claimed to have campaigned.

Chouhan also argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by conducting an internet search during his hearing to determine the party affiliation of the candidate whom he allegedly supported. Chouhan stated that he had no objection to *548 the search when asked by the IJ. See In re Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n. 2 (B.I.A.1996) (en banc) (holding that issues not raised before the IJ are waived). Moreover, Chouhan cannot show prejudice. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir.2011) (per cu-riam). He also had the opportunity to introduce contrary evidence, but did not do so. Chouhan therefore was not deprived of “a full and fair hearing of his claims.” Id. at 1191 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Chouhan’s petition for review is DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 F. App'x 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amandeep-chouhan-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack