Case ID: f-appx_255/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ali AZIZMOHAMMADI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-72526, 06-72077.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
    Ali Azizmohammadi, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA; Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Paul F. Stone, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions, Ali Azizmohammadi, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the denial of asylum, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petitions for review.

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination because Azizmohammadi submitted a fraudulent document that went to the heart of his claim, which was that he was arrested and detained. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004); see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Azizmohammadi’s motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by his former representative not being a licensed attorney in the State of California or an accredited representative. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 902.

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