N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM AAL HUSEEN ALIYYI,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-71826 Age n c y No. A215-815-491
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. Jam a a l Aliy

y i, a nat ive and c itiz e n of Ethiopia , pe titions for re vie w of the d e nia l of his a

pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ) by the B oa rd of Im m igration 

# FIL ED

OCT 29 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The im m igration judge (“ IJ” ) found Aliy y i not c re d ible , a

nd the B IA
c onc lude d tha

t the IJ’ s finding wa s not c le a rly e rrone ous. Substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the

a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion ba s e d on inc onsiste nc i e s in Aliy y i’ s te stim ony a bout his pa ssport a

nd om issions a

bout theha

rm suffe re d by

his brothe rs
and fathe r. 1 Se eLizhi Qiu , 944 F.3d a t 842. There c ord supports the c ite d inc o nsiste nc i e s a

nd om issions. Se eShre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ In the tota lity of c irc um sta

nc e s it wa s a

re a sona ble a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation, grounde d in the re c ord a nd ba se d on re a l proble m s with [pe t itione r’ s] te s tim ony , not m e re trivia litie s .” ). Aliy y i fa ile d to a d e quate ly

e xpla in the i nc onsiste nc ie s a

nd om issions, a

nd the e v ide nc e Aliy

y i re lie s upon to support his c la i m doe s not c om

pe l us to a

c ontra ry c o n c lusion. Se eLata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000). Thus, a bse nt c re dible t e stim ony , the B IA prope rly de nie d Aliy

y i’ s c la im s for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l. Se eFarah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153,

1 W e ne e d not a ddre ss Aliy y i’ s a rgum e nt s re ga

rding theothe r c i te d re a sons for the a dve rse c re dibility finding, be c a

use “ [w] e m

ust uphold a

n a d ve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion ‘ so long a s e v e n one ba s is is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .’ ” Lizhi Qiu v . Barr , 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th C ir. 2019) (quoting Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011)). 21156 (9th C ir. 2003). TheB IA a lso prope rly de nie d Aliy

y i’ s c la i m for C AT re lie f, be c a use it wa s ba se d on the sa m e te stim ony

found not c re dible , a

nd he doe s not point to a ny othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord whic h would c om p e l a c onc lusion tha

t he would be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the Ethiopia n gove rnm e nt. Se eid. at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3