NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOUIDET SISTANIS; CHRISTELA JEAN, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72744 

Agency Nos. A209-871-562 

A209-867-749 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Louidet Sistanis and Christela Jean, natives and citizens of Haiti, petition pro 

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for 

asylum and voluntary departure, and Sistanis’s applications for withholding of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72744 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-

40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 

400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on an inconsistency between Sistanis’s border interview and testimony 

regarding his reasons for fleeing Haiti and an omission regarding threats he 

received in Haiti. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding 

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 403 

F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (indicia of reliability for interview with 

immigration officer); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (“[A]n adverse credibility determination may be supported by omissions 

that are not details, but new allegations that tell a much different—and more 

compelling—story of persecution than [the] initial application[.]” (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted)). Sistanis’s explanations do not compel a 

contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (IJ not 

compelled to accept explanations for discrepancies). Thus, in the absence of 

credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim and Sistanis’s withholding of 
3 20-72744 

removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Sistanis’s CAT 

claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the 

record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to 

Haiti. See id. at 1157.

We do not address Sistanis’s contentions that, assuming his testimony was 

credible, he established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because 

the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 

657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we 

consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

Petitioners forfeited any challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See 

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013); see also

Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 3 F.4th 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2021) (statutorily deficient 

notice to appear does not trigger the voluntary departure stop-time provision); 

Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2019) (new claim based on 

change of law may be raised in a motion to reconsider at the agency).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.