Pal v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Pal v. Ashcroft

109 F. App'x 939

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 2004

DocketNo. 03-71859; Agency No. A75-613-940

StatusPublished

This text of 109 F. App'x 939 (Pal v. Ashcroft) 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

Pal v. Ashcroft, 109 F. App'x 939 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Tejinder Pal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination because petitioner failed to exhaust this issue before the Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The agency’s credibility determination is dispositive of petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Tejinder Pal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination because petitioner failed to exhaust this issue before the Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The agency’s credibility determination is dispositive of petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F. App'x 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pal-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack