NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HASSAN ABDULLAHI TAHLIIL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-1338

Agency No.

A206-263-964

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 13, 2024**

Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and CHRISTEN and VANDYKE, Circuit 

Judges.

Hassan Abdullahi Tahliil, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for 

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal 

of an order from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (together with the BIA, the 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 17 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-1338

“Agency”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not 

recount them here. We deny the petition. 

“Where, as here, the [BIA] incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own 

without citing Matter of Burbano, 201 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will 

review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 

F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We review adverse credibility determinations 

and denials of CAT protection for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 

F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency 

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” DuranRodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

1. Adverse Credibility Determination. Tahliil challenges the Agency’s 

conclusion that he did not testify credibly. “[T]he REAL ID Act requires that 

credibility determinations be made on the basis of the ‘totality of the 

circumstances, and all relevant factors.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The Act “permits IJs to 

consider factors such as demeanor, candor, responsiveness, plausibility, 

inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods to form the basis of an adverse 

credibility determination.” Barseghyan v. Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1142–43 (9th 
3 21-1338

Cir. 2022) (citing Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044). 

Here, the IJ and BIA identified five inconsistencies in Tahliil’s testimony.

Three of those inconsistencies relate to the incident underlying Tahliil’s claim of 

persecution: an alleged attack on Tahliil’s brother by rival clan members. Tahliil 

does not dispute that the record supports these three inconsistencies.1 At his 

hearing, Tahliil was given an opportunity to explain each inconsistency. The IJ 

concluded, and the BIA agreed, that Tahliil’s explanations did not adequately 

explain these inconsistencies. Tahliil does not point to any evidence in the record 

that compels the conclusion that the BIA failed to consider the totality of the 

circumstances. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s adverse credibility 

finding. In the absence of credible testimony, the record does not compel us to 

reach a conclusion contrary to the Agency’s determination that Tahliil is ineligible 

for asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 

1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1 Tahliil contends that the Agency erred in relying on the two remaining

inconsistencies—his testimony concerning the length of time he spent in Kenya, and 

his vague testimony as to important dates. He argues that the first is “not a 

significant inconsistency,” and that the second is not an inconsistency at all. We 

need not decide whether the BIA erred in relying on these two inconsistencies

because we conclude that the three inconsistencies related to the attack on Tahliil’s 

brother are sufficient to support the Agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (“There is no brightline rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or 

rejecting an adverse credibility determination . . . .”). 
4 21-1338

2. CAT Relief. Tahliil contends that the BIA erred in affirming the denial 

of his CAT claim because the IJ failed to consider country conditions. To qualify 

for relief under CAT, a petitioner must show that “it is more likely than not that he 

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 

Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2)). In determining whether a petitioner is eligible for CAT relief, 

“all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, 

including, but not limited to . . . relevant information regarding conditions in the 

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) (emphasis added). The BIA “need 

not discuss each piece of evidence submitted.” Gonzalez-Caraveo, 882 F.3d at 

894. But “[w]here the [BIA] does not consider all the evidence before it, either by 

‘misstating the record [or] failing to mention highly probative or potentially 

dispositive evidence,’ its decision cannot stand.” Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278, 

1283 (9th Cir. 2020) (third alteration in original) (quoting Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 

762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

As an initial matter, we presume the BIA reviewed the record and 

considered all relevant evidence. Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 771 (9th 

Cir. 2022). Here, in denying Tahliil’s CAT claim, neither the IJ nor the BIA 

expressly analyzed Tahliil’s country conditions evidence. But the Agency was 

“under no obligation” to “expressly discuss it.” Id. The country conditions 
5 21-1338

evidence in the record is neither “highly probative” nor “potentially dispositive” of 

the probability that Tahliil would be subject to torture if removed to Somalia 

because the evidence indicates a generalized risk of clan-based violence. See 

Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 649–50, 650 n.8 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that an 

applicant seeking CAT relief must demonstrate a “particularized threat” of future 

torture, and generalized evidence of violence will not suffice (citation omitted)). 

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. See 

Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that in 

the absence of credible testimony, the court “would have to find that the reports 

alone compelled the conclusion that [the petitioner] is more likely than not to be 

tortured” to reverse the BIA’s decision denying CAT relief). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.