Rajeev Kumar Kapil v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJEEV KUMAR KAPIL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-72908
Agency No.
A200-988-754
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, MCKEOWN, and FUENTES,*** Circuit Judges.
Appellant Rajeev Kumar Kapil petitions for review of an Order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
decision to deny his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and his
FILED
MAR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Julio M. Fuentes, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

request for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Kapil claims that police in
India arrested him, beat him mercilessly, and deprived him of food and drink
because they incorrectly believed he was working with Muslim militants. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we DENY the petition.
We review the factual findings and credibility determinations of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) for substantial evidence, and we “uphold the
[Board]’s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Jie Cui v.
Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s determination that
Kapil was not credible. The textual and substantive similarities between Kapil’s
written asylum application and that of his brother were too significant to be
coincidental, and Kapil did not provide an adequate explanation for them. In
addition, Kapil’s testimony regarding how he prepared his asylum application was
inconsistent with his brother’s testimony on the same topic, and Kapil failed to
corroborate his account by presenting the man who had transcribed both brothers’
asylum applications as a witness.
As the Board correctly concluded, without credible testimony from Kapil,
the other evidence Kapil submitted was insufficient to establish entitlement to
asylum. Accordingly, Kapil has also failed to establish that he is entitled to
withholding of removal, which imposes a “higher” burden of proof on petitioners

-- 2 of 3 --

than does asylum. Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Kapil is not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Given Kapil’s lack of credibility, he has not provided sufficient credible evidence
that he was subjected to torture in the past. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Additionally,
Kapil has not provided sufficient credible evidence to show that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured in India with the consent or acquiescence of a
government official. See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2012).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --