Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abdi Barkadle ALI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73620
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 03, 2016
    Julius E. Jaboro, Law Offices of Aziz J. Asmar, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abdi Barkadle Ali, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination in light of inconsistencies between Ali’s written application and his testimony regarding whether he suffered beatings during his first arrest and detention, the length of that detention, and whether the authorities arrested him a third time in July, 2009. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-40 (9th Cir. 2014) (single inconsistency between declaration and testimony supported adverse credibility determination). Ali’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ali’s contentions that he was not afforded an opportunity to explain his “seemingly inconsistent statements” regarding the length of his first detention and whether he was arrested a third time because he did not exhaust those claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Ali’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ali’s CAT claim because it was premised on the same statements found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Ali would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Ethiopia. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.