Case ID: f-appx_566/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stella Anjenkeng FONKENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71425.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 7, 2014.
    Filed March 27, 2014.
    Stella Anjenkeng Fonkeng, Laurel, MD, pro se.
    Puneet Cheema, Trial, Oil, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and BREYER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. The BIA properly dismissed Petitioner Stella Fonkeng’s appeal from the IJ’s decision denying her asylum and withholding of removal on the basis of an adverse credibility determination. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.2013). The IJ and BIA found that Fonkeng lacked credibility, not because she lied about her visa and means of travel, but because the inconsistencies directly-related to her motive for coming to the U.S. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006).

2. Neither the IJ nor the BIA failed to analyze separately Fonkeng’s Convention Against Torture claim. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003). The IJ and BIA reviewed the extrinsic evidence of alleged past torture against Fonkeng, including the country reports and photographs of Fonkeng’s scars. They properly concluded that the evidence didn’t “suffice to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if returned to Cameroon.”

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