LAW.coLAW.co

Jaafar AL AMMARAH, aka Jaafar Al Amarah, and Suha Samad Al Diwan, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2016-06-22No. No. 14-71707
667 F. App'x 176

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

MEMORANDUM

Jaafar A1 Ammarah and Suha Samad Al Diwan, natives and citizens of Iraq, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against -Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistencies as to the timing and circumstances of Al Ammarah’s detention, his brother’s arrest, and A1 Ammarah going into hiding go to the heart of his claim of persecution in Iraq. See id. (“inconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination”) (citation omitted). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Iraq. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.