NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N
UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

S E K OU DOUK O URE ,

P eti ti o n er ,

v
. WI L L I A M P

. B A RR, A ttor n ey Gen er al , Res pon d en

t. No. 19- 70769

A g en cy No. A 216- 272- 049

M E M O RA

NDUM *

On P eti ti on f or Rev i ew of

an Or der of th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s
A r g u ed an d S u

bm i tted O ctober 19, 2020 S an F r an ci s co, Cal i f

or n i a
B ef or e: T H OM A S , Ch i ef J u d g e, an d K E L L Y * * an d M I L L E R, Ci r cu i t J u dg es
. P eti ti on er S ekou Dou

k ou r e, a n ati v e an d ci t i zen of Gu i n ea, peti ti on s f or

r ev i ew of th e B oar d of I m m i g r ati on A ppeal s ’ ( “ B I A ”) di s m

i s s al of h i s appeal f

r om
th e I m m i g r ati on J u dg e’ s ( “ I J”) den i al of h i s appl i cati o n f or as y l u m , wi th h o l di n g of

r em o v al , an d Con

v en ti o n A g ai n s t T or

tu r e ( “ CA T ”) r el i ef

. We h av e j u

r i s di cti on 

# FI L E D

OCT 23 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e H on or abl e P au l J

. K el l y , J r ., Un i ted S tates Ci r cu i t J u dg e f or th e U. S

. Cou r t of A ppeal s f or th e T en th Ci r cu i t, s i tti n g b y des i g n ati on
.u

n der 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( a) ( 1) , an d we den y t h e peti ti on i n par

t an d di sm

i s s i t i n par

t.
B ecau s e th e par

t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi th th e h i s tor

y o f th e cas e, we n eed n o t r ecou n t i t
h er e.
1. S u

bs tan t i al ev i d en ce s u

ppor ts th e I J ’ s an d th e B I A ’ s adv er se

cr edi bi l i ty d eter

m i n ati on an d, con s equ en

tl y , th e ag en cy ’ s con cl u s i on th at P eti ti on er
i s n ot en ti tl ed to as y l u

m or wi th h ol di n g of r em ov al

. Wh er e th e B I A p r ov i des

m u l ti pl e g r ou n ds f or an adv er se cr edi bi l i ty

f i n di n g , as i t di d h er e, th e f i n di n g m u s t
be u ph el d s o l on g

as on e g r ou

n d i s n on tr i v i al an d s u

p por ted by s u bs tan ti al

ev i den ce. Cor tez

- P ineda v. Holder , 610 F

. 3d 1118, 1125 n
. 8 ( 9th Ci r
. 2010) ;
Shr es tha v. Holder , 5 90 F

. 3d 1034, 1043–48 ( 9th Ci r
. 2010)

. H er e, th e r ecor d
dem on s tr ates i n con s i s ten ci es i n P eti ti o n er ’ s tes ti m on y an d oth er statem en

ts of

r ecor d con cer

n i n g wh eth er h e h ad f

am i l y oth er th an

h i s i m m edi ate f am i l y l i v i n g

n ear h i m i n Gu i n ea, an d

wh en h e l as t s aw h i s m

oth er
. T h e ev i den ce P eti ti on er
pr es en ted was n ot “ ‘ s o com

pel l i n g th at n o r eas on abl e f actf i n der cou l d f

i n d th at [ h e]

was n ot cr edi bl e. ’ ” M

alkandi v. Holder , 576 F

. 3d 906, 917 ( 9th Ci r
. 2009) ( q u oti n g F ar ah v. A s hcr oft , 348 F

. 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9th Ci r
. 2003) )

. We l ack ju

r i s di cti on to con s i der P eti t i on er ’ s ch al l en g es to th e I J ’ s r el i an ce

on an om i s si o n f r om h i s as y l u m appl i cati on an d th e I J’ s f i n di n g th at P eti ti on er

2pr ov i ded n on - r es pon s i v e tes ti m on y becau s e P eti ti on er d i d n ot r ai s e t h os e i s s u es
bef or e th e B I A

. 8 U. S .C. § 1252( d) ( 1)

. T h e adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty

deter m i n ati on i s s u f

f i ci en t to s u ppor t th e d en i al of

r el i ef becau s e th e I J f

ou n d th at th e oth er ev i den ce of r ecor d di d n o t s u f f i ci en tl y

s u ppor t P eti ti on er ’ s cl ai m s f

or as y l u m or wi th h ol d i n g of r em ov al , an d P eti ti on er
di d n ot appeal th os e f

i n di n g s to th e B I A

. 2. S u bs tan t i al ev i d en ce s u

ppor ts th e ag en cy ’ s deci s i on to den y r el i ef

u n der th e CA T

. A

n adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty deter m i n ati on i s n ot n eces sar i l y f atal to a
CA T cl ai m
. Kamalthas v. I NS , 251 F

. 3d 1279, 1 283–84 ( 9 th Ci r
. 2001)

. H owev er , wh en th e peti ti on er i s f

o u n d n ot cr edi bl e, th e r ecor d apar t f r om th e peti ti on er ’ s

tes ti m on y m u s t com pel th e con cl u si on th at i t i s m or e l i kel y th an n ot th at th e peti ti on er wou l d be tor

tu r ed i n or der to r ev er se th e ag en cy ’ s deci s i on
. Shr es tha , 590 F

. 3d at 1048–49. H er e, th e I J deter m i n ed th at th e n on - tes ti m

on i al ev i den ce i n
th e r ecor d d i d n ot war

r an t CA T r el i ef

. P eti ti on er di d n ot ch al l en g e th e I J ’ s d en i al
of CA T r el i ef i n depen den t of th e adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty d eter m i n ati on bef

or e th e B I A ,

s o we l ack ju

r i sdi cti on to con s i der

th e i n depen den

t m er i ts

. 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( d) ( 1)

. 3. P eti ti o n er

was n ot depr i v ed of du e p r oces s by th e tr an s l ati on pr ov i ded

at h i s h ear i n g bef

or e th e I J

. I n i m

m i g r ati on pr oceedi n g s , “ ‘ [ a] du e pr oces s

v i ol ati on occu

r s wh er e ( 1 ) t

h e pr oceedi n g was s o f

u n dam en tal l y u n f ai r th at th e

3al i en was pr ev en ted f r om r eas on abl y pr es en

ti n g h i s cas e, an d ( 2) th e al i en
dem on s tr ates pr eju di ce, w h i ch m ean s t h at th e ou t com e o f th e pr oceedi n g m ay h av e
been af f ected by th e al l eg ed v i ol ati on
. ’ ” V ilchez v. H

older , 682 F

. 3d 1195, 1199 ( 9 th Ci r
. 2 012) ( q

u oti n g L acs ina P

angilinan v. Holder , 568 F .3d 708, 709 ( 9th Ci r
. 2009) )

. A l th ou g h “ [ c] l ar i f i cati on or r epeti ti on was at ti m es r equ i r ed, ” th e r ecor d i n
th i s cas e i n di cates th at th e tr an sl ati o n pr ov i ded at th e h ear i n g g av e P eti t i on er “ a
f ai r oppor tu n i ty to r el ate [ h i s] v er s i on of ev en ts

. ” Kotas

z v. I NS , 31 F

. 3d 847, 850

n
. 2 ( 9th Ci r
. 1994)

. Wi th r es pect to th e s peci f

i c pu r por ted tr an s l ati on er

r or
P eti ti on er al l eg es , th e I J i m m edi atel y al er

ted P eti t i on er

to t h e appar en

t
i n con s i s ten cy w i th h i s p r i or tes t i m on y an d g av e h i m m

u l ti p l e oppor tu n i t i es to

ex pl ai n or cl ar i f

y h i s t es ti m

on y
. P eti ti o n er l ater r ai s ed t h e pu r por ted tr an s l ati on

er r or to th e I J as an

al ter n ati v e ex pl an ati on f

or th e i n con s i s ten cy , bu

t th e I J an d

B I A r eas o n abl y r ejected th i s ex pl an ati on as i n con s i sten

t wi th h i s p r i or tes ti m

on y
. On t h i s r ecor d, P eti ti on er h as n ot dem on s tr ated t

h at t h e tr an s l ati on pr ov i ded at h i s
h ear i n g was s o i n adequ ate th at h e was depr i v ed o f th e oppor tu n i ty to pr es en

t h i s

cas e. 1

1 We den

y th e P eti ti on er ’ s m

oti on to s u

ppl em en t th e adm i n i s tr ati v e r ecor d wi t h an au di o r ecor di n g of th e h ear i n g th at was n o t f

i r st pr es en

ted to th e B I A

. See 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A )

. 44. We l ack ju r i s di cti on to con s i der P eti t i on er ’ s du e pr o ces s cl ai m

con cer n i n g th e I J’ s den i al

of h i s r equ es t f

or a con ti n u an ce becau s e h e di d n ot

ex h au s t th at cl ai m bef

or e th e ag en cy
. 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( d) ( 1)

.

P ETI TI O N DENI ED I N P A RT AND DI S M I S S ED I N P A RT.

5