N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALI M OHAM ED ESSA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-72585 Age n c y No. A077-813-481
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 Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 6, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a n d DUFFY, Distric t Judge
. ** Ali M oha m e d Essa (“ Essa ” ) pe titions for re v ie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding



# FIL ED NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ke vin Thom a s Duffy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.of re m ova l, a nd a d justm e nt of sta

tus. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe t ition. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Essa la c ke d
c re d ibility . Essa

offe re d inc onsiste nt a

nd c onflic ting te s tim ony on m ultiple
oc c a sions re ga

rding the nature of his a c tivitie s with thePolitic a l Se c urity Polic e (“ PSP” ) in Ye m e n, his re a sons for wishing to le ave the PSP, a n d his a lle ge d de te ntions by

the PSP. For e xam

ple , he sta

te d in his a sy lum

inte rvie w tha

t inform a t ion he provide d to the PSP “ le d to the arre st[s] of pe ople suspe c te d of pla c ing bom

bs[,] inc luding innoc e nt pe rsons,” but the n told theIm m igration Judge (“ IJ” ) that he ne ithe r obta ine d nor ga ve the PSP a ny

inform a tion re ga

rding antigove rnm e nt forc e s . He sugge ste d in his de c la ra tion in support of a sy lum tha t he sought to le ave the PSP be c a u se of the orga

niz a tion’ s re p re ssive pra c tic e s, but the n told the IJ tha

t he de c ide d

to re sign following a

n inc ide nt of se xua l a ssa

ult pe rpe t ra t e d by four worke rs from the politic a l se c urity

offic e . Essa

wa s a lso inc o nsiste nt in re c ounting the num be r of tim e s he wa s de ta ine d by the PSP a nd the duration of those

de te ntions. The se inc o nsiste nc ie s go to thehe art of Essa ’ s c l a im and provide substa

ntia l
e vide nc e in support of the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ion. S

e e W ang v . IN S , 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th C ir. 2003) (noting tha t so long a s one of the ba se s Pa ge 2for an

a dve rse c re d i bility

de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e and goe s to the he art of a

n a pplic ant’ s c la im , “ w e are bound to a c c e pt the . . . a d ve rse c re d ibility

finding” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Essa did not
m e aningfully e xpla i n the se inc onsiste nc ie s. Essa la rge ly a ttribute d the a

ppa re nt
c onflic ts in his na

rra tive to e m

b e llishm e nts by

the inte rpre te r a t his a sy lum inte rvie w— an e xpla

nation re je c te d by the a ge nc y . The e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not “ c om pe l[] a c ontra ry c onc lusion.” Zarate

v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th C ir. 2012). The B IA re a sona bly c re dite d the a s y l um

offic e r’ s note s re ga

rding wha

t Essa sa id during the

inte rvie w a

nd he r te s tim o ny

re ga rding the proc e d

ure s she would ha ve followe d ha d the re be e n indic a tions tha t the inte rpre t e r wa s not pe rform i ng a d e quat e ly . M ore ove r, a s the B IA note d, Essa ’ s te stim ony be fore the IJ wa s itse lf inte rna l ly

c ontra dic tory

in num e rous insta

nc e s. 2. Furthe r, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c o nc lusion tha

t Essa
wa s ina dm issiblefor purpose s of a d justm e nt of sta

tus be c a use he “ willfully
m isre pre se nt[e d] a

m a te ria l fa c t” to proc ure an im m igration be ne fit. 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(C )(i). Spe c ific a lly , the a g e nc y c ite d Essa ’ s sta

t e m e nts to thea sy lum offic e r de sc ribing his pa

rtic i pation in the

PSP a nd his la

te r disa vowa l of those sta te m e nts. Essa ’ s sta

te m e nts a t his a sy lum

inte rvie wre ga

rding the nature of his Pa ge 3pa

rtic i pation in the

PSP large ly

c onform to the a c c ount Essa provide d in his initia

l
a sy lum de c la

ra tion, a n d the y m irror othe r state m e nts m a de in his he aring te stim ony . And y e t, be fore the IJ, Essa de n i e d e ve r m aking suc h re m arks to the
a sy lum offic e r. The re c o rd supports a finding tha

t Essa m a de a “ m isre p re se ntation [that] wa s de libe ra te and volunta ry ” with “ knowle d ge of [its] fa lsity
. ” Forbe s v . IN S , 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th C i r. 1995). M ore ove r, this m i sre pre se ntation wa s m a te ria l . Essa ’ s sta

te m e nts during his a sy l um inte rvie w c ould pote ntia lly have re nde re d him

ine ligiblefor a sy lum a s a pe rson who “

pa rtic ipate d in the pe rse c ution of [othe rs] on a c c ount of . . . politic a l opinion.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i). As
suc h , Essa ’ s disa

vowa l of those sta

te m e nts “ ha [d] a

nat ura l te n de nc y

to influe nc e the d e c ision[] of the [a ge nc y ] .” Forbe s , 48 F.3d a

t 442 (quoting K

ungy s v . Unite d State s , 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988)) (inte rna l quota

tion m ark om itte d). W e ne e d not a

n d do not re a c h the re m a ining issue s ra ise d on a ppe a l. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

Pa ge 4