NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANUEL MESERET KELETA,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71354 Agency No. A216

- 182

- 646

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 20, 2020 * *
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. Amanuel Meseret Keleta, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

. We have jurisdiction u nder 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny his petition.

* 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

MAY 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71354

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, using the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. 1 Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s factual find ing s and determination that Keleta was not credible

. The IJ grounded his determination on (1) material inconsistencies between Keleta’s testimony in court and his sworn interviews with a border patrol officer (“CBP”) and an asylum officer, (2) the IJ’s observations of Keleta’s
demeanor and un responsiveness to questions , and (3) a lack of corroboration for his story

. Substantial evidence support s the agency ’s determination

. Keleta’s Political Affiliation Keleta told the asylum officer conducting his c redible f ear i nterview that the
reason behind his persecution was because “I was representative of Oromo Congress , ” and “I am a member of the Oromo Congress

. ” He explained that the Oromo Congress is a “branch of OPDO [Oromo People Democratic Organization] for Oromo people , ” and that he was a “representat ive of Oromo people at the

1 We do not consider the materials Keleta referenced in and submitted with his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

. We deny Keleta’s renewed mot ion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry 25).3 19

- 71354

Oromo Congress

. ” However, during his testimony he denied he was a member of the Oromo Congress, claiming instead that his problems stemmed from his membership in the “Blue Party , ” a party in opposition to the government. When th e government confronted him with this discrepancy regarding his political affiliation , his explanation was, “No, I didn’t say that

. ”
Demeanor The IJ also reported

– with examples

– that Keleta was “repeatedly unresponsive to direct questions by his counsel and the Department, each of whom were forced to repeat questions multiple times. Even when his counsel and the Department rephrased their question s , Respondent’s answers often did not respond to the questions asked

. ” “Notwithstanding the issues o f inconsistencies, omissions and responsiveness , ” however, the IJ looked for corroboration in the documents submitted by Keleta in support of his case. The IJ found nothing that would help
him.
The IJ’s Conclusion The IJ summed up as follows:

After revi ewing the record in its entirety, the Court finds that Respondent failed to rehabilit ate his credibility with corroborating evidence and meet his burden to demonstrate eligibility for relief. . . . Accordingly, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Respondent was not a credible witness, and his testimony4 19

- 71354 is therefore insufficient to carry his burden of proof under the standards set forth in the REAL ID Act. (Citation omitted).
Our Review A petitioner who challenges an adverse credibility determination with respect to his testimony “bears a heavy burden” of proving that he presented
“evidence ‘ so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find ’ that he was not
credible

. ” Farah v. Ashcr oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1154, 1156 (9 th Cir. 2003). Although an IJ must consider a petitioner’s explanations for discrepancies in his various statements to the authorities, he is not required “to accept such testimony
as true.” Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9 th Cir. 2009). As we explained in Rivera v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9 th Cir. 2007), the lack of consistenc y in an applicant’s story may deprive his claim of the requisite “ring of truth

. ”
Moreover , “[t]he need for deference is particularly s trong in the context of
demeanor assessments

. ” Ling H u ang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9 th Cir. 2014). “[I]t would be extraordinary for a reviewing court to substitute its second

hand impression of the petitioner’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness for that of
the IJ.” Id. In his petition, Keleta asks us to reconsider, to reevaluate, and to credit his evidence and his explanations for the inconsistencies in his story. This request is misdirected. We are a court “of review, not of first view

. ” Gonzales v. Thomas ,5 19

- 71354

547 U.S. 183, 185 (2006) (per curiam). The tasks he asks us to undertake bel ong to the IJ, not to an appellate court.
After a n exacting review of the record, we conclude that the IJ supported his adverse credibility determination with substantial evidence stemming from (1) Keleta’s failure to articulate a consistent and cogent rea son for his detention and alleged mistreatment , and (2) his demeanor

. The IJ’s findings of fact on this issue

are not clearly erroneous . His written decision is thorough, well documented, and supported by persuasive reasoning. Accordingly, we deny Kelet a’s petition for asylum

. Convention Against Torture
F or the same reasons , in conjunction with country reports concerning conditions in Ethiopia , w e also deny Keleta’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has not established a cle a r probability of torture
under the new regime in his country. Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048

- 49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.