ALIYYI v. ROSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-12No. No. 19-71826

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Jamaal Aliyyi, an Ethiopian national, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge had found Aliyyi not credible based on inconsistencies and evasiveness in his testimony regarding his documents, as well as omissions about harm suffered by family members. The BIA affirmed this credibility finding as not clearly erroneous, supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The court upheld the BIA's determinations across all three relief categories. Because Aliyyi's testimony was found not credible and he failed to adequately explain the inconsistencies and omissions identified, the court concluded the BIA properly denied his asylum and withholding claims. Similarly, since Aliyyi's Convention Against Torture claim rested on the same non-credible testimony and he presented no other evidence establishing he would face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Ethiopian government, that claim was also properly denied.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility determinations based on testimony inconsistencies and omissions
Standard of review for immigration judge credibility findings
Sufficiency of evidence for asylum and withholding of removal claims
Convention Against Torture relief eligibility

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination and denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER

The prior memorandum disposition filed on October 29, 2020, is hereby amended concurrent with the filing of the amended disposition today.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Nelson has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Hawkins and Judge N.R. Smith have so recommended.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed in response to the amended disposition.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *

Jamaal Aliyyi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Aliyyi not credible, and the BIA concluded that the IJs finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on (1) inconsistencies in Aliyyis testimony and the evasiveness of his responses with regard to his birth certificate, national identity card, and passport and (2) omissions about the harm suffered by his brothers and father. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). The record supports the cited inconsistencies, evasiveness, and omissions. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In the totality of circumstances it was a reasonable adverse credibility determination, grounded in the record and based on real problems with [petitioners] testimony, not mere trivialities.”). Aliyyi failed to adequately explain the inconsistencies and omissions, and the evidence Aliyyi relies upon to support his claim does not compel us to a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Thus, absent credible testimony, the BIA properly denied Aliyyis claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA also properly denied Aliyyis claim for CAT relief, because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record which would compel a conclusion that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Ethiopian government. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.