NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAZEEM OLAITAN OLADELE,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71539

Agency No. A063

- 022

- 272

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2020 * * San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, ** * District Judge.

Kazeem Oladele petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ’

( “ BIA ” ) decision dismissing his appeal of the denial of his 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 Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

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

review.

The immigration judge ( “ IJ ” ) found Oladele not credible, and the BIA

determined that this finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence

supports the adverse credibility determination. See Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785,

789 (9th Cir. 2014 ) ( “ We review factual findings, including adverse credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence.” ).

First
, the IJ found that Oladele materially altered his account of persecution.

Upon arriving in the United States, Oladele stated that he feared persecution from a

cult, but testified a few weeks later that he also fled because of his sexual orientation

.
Such “ n ew a llegations that tell a ‘much different

— and more compelling

— story of
persecution than [the] initial application’” support the adverse credibility

determination in this case

. Silva

- Pereira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir.

2016) (quoting Zamanov v. Ho lder , 649 F.3d 969, 97 4 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Second
, the IJ found that Oladele did not testify credibly based on his

demeanor

. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034
, 104 0 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that
an adverse credibility determination includes consideration of the “demeanor,
candor, [and] responsiveness of the applicant”); id. at 104 1 (“IJs are in the best
position to assess demeanor.”). T he IJ noted that Oladele was “ non

- responsive ” a t
times and seemed to “contemplate[]” how one of his answers would fit “in the3

context of his claimed sequence of events.”

Third , Oladele testified that after visiting South Africa in 2013, he returned to

Nigeria despite fearing persecution there

. “[A]n alien’s history of willingly

returning to his or her home country militates against a finding of past persecution

or a well

- founded fear of future persecution.” Loho v. Mukasey , 531 F.3d 1016,

1017

– 18 (9th Cir. 2008).

Because petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that he suffered past

persecution or that there is a clear probability of future persecution, we deny the
petition as to petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Because
petitioner’s CAT claim was premised “on the same statements . . . that the BIA

determined to be not credible,” Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

2003), the adverse credibility finding also supports denial of CAT relief. Shrestha
,
590 F.3d at 1049.

PETITION DENIED.