N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ALID M AJDUB ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71437 Age n c y No. A078-072-869
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 Oc tobe r 16, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : HAW KINS an d W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd KR ONSTADT, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).

* * * The Honora

ble John A. Kronstadt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.W a lid M a j dub, a c itiz e n of Isra e l, pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s de nia l of his a pplic a tion for a sy lum an d withholding of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a

n d we de ny

the pe tition. The B IA found tha

t M a jdub’ s a sy lum

c la im wa s untim e ly . Substa

ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s c onc lusion. M a

jdub a rrive d in the Unite d State s in Se pte m be r 1993, but did not file

his a s y lum

a pplic ation until M ay

2002. W hile the
one -y e ar filing de a dline m ay be e xc use d if the a

pplic ant file s within a

re a sona ble pe riod a fte r c ha

nge d c irc um sta

n c e s m at e ria lly

a ffe c t his e l igibility

for a s y lum , the
re c o rd supports the

B IA’ s finding tha

t this e xc e ption doe s not a pply . 8 U.S.C § 1158(a )(2)(B ), (D); 8 C
. F.R . § 208.4(a)(4)(i)–(ii). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. The IJ e s ta

blishe d a le g itim a te , a

rtic u la ble ba sis to que stion M a

jdub’ s c re d ibility
and offe re d spe c i fic , c oge nt re a sons for he r disbe lie f. Shah v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2000). M a

jdub ga ve inc onsiste nt te stim ony re ga rding the date of the first Intifa da , his a ffilia

tions with politic a l orga

niz at ions, a

n d the e xte nt of his pa rtic i pation in politic a l a c tivitie s in both Isra e l and in theUnite d State s. B e c a use M a j dub’ s withholding a

pplic a tion is pre m ise d on his c la im to fe ar politic a l pe rse c ution if heis re turne d to Isra e l, the se inc onsiste nc ie s a re not m inor but “ go to 2the h e art” of his a pplic ation. Li v . Ashc r oft , 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2004). M a j dub a rgue s tha t a ny disc re pa nc ie s a re the re sult of inc orre c t tra nsla t ions, but this e xpla nation is im

pla usible give n the bre a dth of the c onflic ting te stim ony ide n tifie d by

the IJ. In the a

bse nc e of c re dible te s tim ony , M a jdub fa ile d to de m onstra

te e ligibility

for withholding of rem o va l. M ore ove r, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s a lte rnative c onc lusion that M a jdub’ s te stim ony , e ve n

if c re dite d, would not e sta blish e ligibility

for withholding. M a

jdub te s tifie d to pre

judic ia l tre atm e nt a

nd ha ra ssm e nt, but the
c onduc t he de sc ribe s doe s not riseto the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Prasad v . IN S , 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th C ir. 1995) PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D
.

3