NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELE JEAN LOUIS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72256

Agency No. A202

- 099

- 845

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 7 , 2020 * *

Pasadena , California

Before: KELLY ***

, GOULD, and R. NELSON, and Circu it Judges

.

Angele Jean Louis, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review o f the

Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) denial of her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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).

** * The Honorable Paul J. Kelly Jr. , United States Circuit Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit , sitti ng by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for

review.

The immigra tion judge (“IJ”) found Louis not credible, and the BIA

concluded that the IJ’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence

supports the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Louis’

testimony concerning who was raped du ring the December 2012 incident, whether

the rapist was arrested and held for a brief period of hours or was jailed for two years,

and whether she stopped attending school in June 2012 or after the December 2012

incident. 1 See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr , 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) . The record

supports the cited inconsistencies in Louis’ testimony and asylum application

. See

Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Louis failed to adequately

explain the inconsistences

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Therefore

, without credible testimony, the BIA properl y denied Louis’ claims for

asylum and withholding of removal. 2 See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 115 6

(9th Cir. 2003).

1 “We must uphold an adverse credibility determination so long as even one
basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr , 944 F.3d 837, 842

(9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we need not address Louis’ arguments about the other cited reasons for the adverse credibility

finding.

2 Because the BIA only addressed the adverse credibility determination and

assumed the asylum application was timely, we need not address the issue of the3

The BIA also properly denied Louis ’ claim for CAT relief because it was

based on the same testimony found not credible, and Louis does not point to any

other evidence in the record compelling a conclusion that she would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the Haitian gove rnment. See Singh v.

Whitaker , 914 F.3d 654, 662

– 63 (9th Cir. 2019).

PETITION DENIED.

one

- year asylum bar here. See Navas v. INS , 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir.

2000).