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

KEVLIN VIC TOR

M IC H AEL, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ER R IC K B
. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-70103 Age n c y No. A208-615-661
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe t ition for R e v ie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d

M a y 16, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : LEE a

n d B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s , a nd FITZW ATER , * ** Distric t Judge

. Ke lvin Vic tor M ic h a e l (“ M ic ha e l” ), a na t ive a n d c i tiz e n of N i g eria , pe titions for re vie w of t

h e B oa rd of Im m i g r at i o n Appe a ls’ (“ B IA’ s” ) orde r dism issing his



# FIL ED
MAY 20 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.a

ppe a l f r o m the Im

m igra tion J

udge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) de c i sion de n y ing his a pplic a tion for

a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Tor ture (“ C AT” ). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a nd we de n y the pe tition for

re vie w. W e re v ie w que stions of la w de nov o , Re tuta v . Holde r , 591 F
. 3 d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, inc luding a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i na tions, for substa ntia l e vide nc e , Muk

ulumbutu v . Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th C ir. 2020). Unde r the s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd , w e m u s t uphold the

a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ina tion unle ss a ny re a sona bl e t r i er of fa c t “ ‘ would be c om pe lle d to
c onc lude to t

he c ontra ry ’ ba se d on the e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Bringas-Rodrigue z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1 051, 1059 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Ci r . 2 014)). In a sse ssing a n a dve rse c re dibility finding, t his

c ourt m ust look to the “ tota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s[] a nd a ll re le va

nt fa c tors.” Alam

v . Garland

, 1 1 F .4 t h 11 33, 1137 (9th C i r. 2 021) (e n b a nc ) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)). 1. The a ge n c y ’ s a dv er s e c re d ibility finding re lie d on thre e fa c tors: (1) M ic ha e l’ s de la

y i n subm itting his fe a r of disc r i m ina tion ba s e d on h is se xua l orie nta tion; (2) M ic ha e l’ s inte rna l inc onsiste nc y in his te s tim ony a nd inc onsiste nc y be twe e n pre vious inte rvie ws; a nd (3) M ic ha e l’ s re sponsive ne ss a nd candor. It a lso
- 2 -note d tha t h i s co r r o bo r a ting e vide nc e did not re ha bilita te his a pplic a tion. Unde r the tota lity of the c i rc um s ta

nc e s, substan t i a l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse
c re d ibility

de te rm ina t ion. Iman v . Barr , 972 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (9th C ir. 2020). The a ge nc y did no t er r i n re ly ing on M ic ha e l’ s d e la y in subm itting h is fe a r of disc rim ina tion ba se d o n h i s se xua l orie nta tion. Li v . A s hc r oft , 3 78 F.3d 959, 963 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t disc re pa nc y be twe e n p e titione r’ s initial sta t e m e nts—

tha t he

c a m e t o Unite d S t at e s for fina nc ia l re a sons a nd wa s not m istre a te d by fore ign gove rnm e nt— a nd la te r te stim ony a sse rting fe a r of pe rse c ution provide d a va lid ba sis fo r t h e IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ina tion). Nor did the a ge nc y e rr in re je c ting M ic ha e l’ s e xpla

n a tio n f or h i s fa ilure to disc lose his fe a r of disc rim ina tion ba se d o n his se x ua l orie nta tion. 1 The a ge nc y re a sona b ly re je c te d his e xpla

na tion be c a

use it wa s
re he a rse d a nd rote
. Se e Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1 155 (9th C ir. 2014); Zamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 9 69, 974 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he re c ord doe s not c om pe l the finding tha t the [a ge nc y ’ s] unwillingne ss to be lie ve this e xpla n a t ion, in light of the im porta nc e of the om itte d inc ide nts to his a sy lum c la im , wa s e rrone ous.” ).

1 Mousa v . M

uk a se y , 530 F.3d 1025 (9th C i r. 2 008), is ina pposite

. The re , the pe titione r ha d a c om pe ll in g ex p la

na tion for he r fa ilure to disc lose he r fe a r of p er s ecu t i o n. Se e id. a t 1028-29. M ore ove r, while M ic ha e l om itte d a ny re fe re nc e t o his se xua l-orie nta t ion c la im in his a sy lum a pplic a tio n , M ousa did m e ntion a ge ne ra l fe a r of se xua l viole nc e in he r a s y lum a pplic a tion. Id. a t

1028. - 3 -The a ge nc y a l s o did not e rr in re ly ing on M i ch ael’ s m ultiple , m a te ria l inc o nsiste nt sta

te m e nts. Se e Zamanov , 6 4 9 F.3d a t 9 73 (“ [I] nc onsiste nc i e s re ga rding

e ve nts tha t form t

he ba sis of t

he a sy lum c la im a re suffic ie nt to support a n a dve rse
c re d ibility de te rm ina tion.” ); se e also Rodriguez -Ramire z v . Garland

, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th C ir. 2021) (pe r c uria m ) (“ [D] e spite [pe titione r’ s] te s tim ony in Oc tobe r 2017 tha t this thre a t oc c u rre d in Fe brua ry 2016, the re port he p rovide d from the prose c utor twic e sta te d, o n diffe re nt pa ge s, tha t the thre a ts oc c urre d in Ja nua ry 2016, a nd the IJ found tha t [pe t itione r] did not ha ve a c onvinc i ng e xpla na tion for the d i s cr ep a nc y . ” ); Li , 378 F.3d a

t 962. N o r d i d the a ge nc y e rr in re ly ing o n M ic ha e l’ s de m e a nor t o find him n o t
c re d ible

. Singh-K

aur v . IN S , 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th C i r. 1999) (sta ting tha t t his

c ourt g ive s “ s pe c ia l d e fe re nc e ” t o a c red ibility de te rm ina tion t ha t is ba se d o n de m e a nor); Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ This insta nc e of bla ta n t a nd une xpla ine d u nre sponsive n e ss supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c red i b i lity de te rm i na tion.” ). Fina lly , the a ge n c y did not e rr in c onc luding tha t M ic ha e l’ s c orroborat i n g
e vide nc e did not re ha

b ilita t e his a pplic a tion. Se e G arc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ The s e d oc um e nts do not re ve a l a ny inde pe nde nt knowle dge of [pe t itione r’ s] a l l e ge d a

buse

. ” ).
- 4 -Abse nt c re dible supporting te stim ony , s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a sy lum a nd withhol di n g o f re m o va l. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. M ic ha e l ha s wa ive d his c ha lle nge to t he de nia l of his C AT re lie f by not
a ddre s sing it “ spe c ific a lly a n d distinc tly ” in his ope ning brie f. C hristian Le

gal Soc ’y C hapte r of Univ

. of C

al. v . W u , 626 F.3d 483, 487 (9th C ir. 2 010) (quoting Mille r v . Fairc h ild Indust., Inc

. , 797 F.3d 727, 738 (9th C ir. 1986)). Eve n if he did not wa ive this c ha lle nge , t

h e re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha t M ic ha e l w ill pe rsona lly fa c e torture if he re turns to Nige ria , i.e

. , it d o es not show a pa rtic ula riz e d risk of torture
. Lalay an v . Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th C ir. 2021). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

- 5 -