N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FNU NAJIB UL HAQ, AKA Na j ibul Ha q Siddiqi, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-73067 Age n c y No. A206-032-960
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 Subm itte d April 14, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
MAY4 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 a t 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pe titione r Na jibul Ha q Siddiqi, 1 a

native and c i tiz e n

of Afgha nista n, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his
a ppe a l from

the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de n ia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , 2 withholding of rem o v a l, 3 and C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) 4 re lie f. W e de ny the pe tition. The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t a n a lie n is “ not e ligible for a sy lum m ust be uphe ld if ‘ supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive e vide n c e on the
re c o rd.’ ” IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1105a (a )(4) (1992)). “ It c an be re v e rse d only if the e vide nc e pre se nte d . . . wa s suc h tha t a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r would ha

ve to c o nc lude tha

t the re q uisite fe ar of pe rse c ution e xiste d.” Id. ; se e also Lianhua J iang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th C ir. 2014). Thesa m e sta nda rd a pplie s to

1 Pe titione r’ s visa

wa s issue d, a

nd his notic e to a

ppe ar wa s se rve d, unde r the nam e FNU (First Na

m e Unknown) Ha q. Howe ve r, he te stifie d tha t his la st na

m e is Siddiqi a nd file d his a sy lum

a pplic a tion unde r that na

m e . W e the re fore re fe r to him a s suc h. 2 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(1). 3 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). 4 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d D e c . 10, 1984, S. Tre a ty Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 2a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ions. Se e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e have re v i e we d

the re c ord a

nd a re satisfie d tha

t the B IA’ s de te rm ination
wa s supporte d

by substa n tia l e vide nc e . The IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination
wa s ba se d

in pa rt on Siddiqi’ s de m e anor during c ross-e xam i nation, a n d the IJ ide n tifie d pa

rtic ula r insta nc e s of e va sive ne ss supporting the a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e id. at 1041–42. As to the inc onsiste n c i e s in Siddiqi’ s te stim ony re ga rding the Ta liba

n ’ s pe rse c ution of him

an d his furtive c rossing into C ana da , Siddiqi ha s wa ive d a ny c ha lle nge s to those issue s a s prope r grounds for the a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination by

not a rguing the m

in his ope n ing brie f. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). M ore ove r, on this re c ord, Siddiqi ha s fa ile d to e sta blish a c le ar proba

bility of pe rse c ution, a s re quire d for his withholding of re m o va l c la i m . Se e Garc ia v
. Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014); s e e also Farah v. Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Additiona lly , the e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not
c om pe l a de te rm ination tha

t it is m ore like ly

tha n not Siddiqi would be

torture d in Afgha nista n. Thus, heis not e ntitle d to C AT re lie f. Lianhua J i ang , 754 F.3d a

t 740–41; se e also Singh v. Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th C ir. 2015); Farah , 348 F.3d at 1156–57.
3Siddiqi’ s due proc e ss c la im ba se d on the B IA’ s de n ia l of his re q ue s t for a third e xte nsion of time to file his re sponde nt’ s brie f a lso fa ils. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the e xte nsion should ha

ve be e n give n, he ha s fa ile d to show pre judic e from the de nia l. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1013–14 (9th C i r. 2010). Afte r de ny ing the re que s t, the B IA a c c e pte d a nd c o nside re d Siddiqi’ s re sponde nt’ s brie f
e ve n though it wa s file d fifty -six da y s la te . Fina lly , we de ny

Siddiqi’ s m otion to re m and; it should ha ve be e n subm itte d to the B IA a

nd is untime l y . Singh v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 879, 883–84, 884 nn. 4–5 (9th C ir. 2011). Pe tition DE NIE D
.

4