Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Napoleon Mekonnen ASFAW, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72898.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2007.
    
    Filed May 1, 2007.
    Robert Houston Pauw, Esq., Gibbs Houston Pauw, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Leslie McKay, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. Asfaw’s inconsistent accounts of his activities after release from custody justified the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (one inconsistency that goes to the heart of the claim is enough). The IJ’s finding that Asfaw did not show he is eligible for asylum is therefore supported by the record. Id. at 962.

2. The IJ disbelieved Asfaw’s account that he suffered persecution, and found that the witnesses he called did not credibly establish Asfaw would face persecution or torture if he returned to Ethiopia. Asfaw therefore did not show “he would have the same problems that his father has had.” [AR 112.] We are not compelled to conclude otherwise. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).

3. The IJ found that Asfaw had not proven that the Ethiopian government viewed him as a threat, despite what may have happened to Asfaw’s father. Additional documentation relating to Asfaw’s father would thus have made no difference. The lawyer’s attempt to steer Asfaw’s testimony is irrelevant, as Asfaw knew he was sworn to tell the truth. The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion when it found Asfaw wasn’t prejudiced by his lawyer’s performance. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir.2005).

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