N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IM AD HAB EEB HANNA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72480 Age n c y No. A212-191-367
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 8, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s , a n d B OUGH, ** Distric t Judge
. Im a d Ha be e b Ha nna , a native and c itiz e n of Ira q, pe titions for re vie w of the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) a

nd B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his



# F IL ED NOV 16 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ste phe n R
. B ough, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M issouri, sitting by de signa tion.a

pplic a tion for a s y lum an d withholding of rem ova l. 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion ba se d on 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a

nd de ny the pe tition. The a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ion wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e be c a

use the B IA an d IJ ide ntifie d m u ltiple inc onsiste nc e s be t

we e n Hanna ’ s te stim ony

a bout his servic e in the Ira qi R e p ublic an Gua rd a nd the ba c kground doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e subm itte d, 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii), Singh
v . Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 975 (9th C ir. 2015), H anna ha d pre v iously

lie d to im m igration offic ia l s, Singh v . Holde r , 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd Hanna fa ile d to offe r e a sily

ava ila ble c orroborating e vide nc e , Sidhu v . I.N
. S. , 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th C ir. 2000), as ame nde d on de nial of re h’g (Se pt. 27, 2000). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t the e vide nc e in the re c ord indic a te s tha

t the pe rse c utor ba

r m ay a pply to Ha nna . 8 C .F.R
. § 1240.8(d). Under e ithe r the te st outline d in Miranda Alv arado v . Gonzale

s , 449 F.3d 915, 925–30 (9th C ir. 2006), or theB IA’ s te st e sta blishe d in In Matte r of D-R- , 27 I. & N. De c . 105, 118–21 (B IA 2017), the re wa s suffic ie nt e v i de nc e to support a prim a fa c i e c a se tha

t Ha nna m ay have “ orde re d, inc ite d, a ssiste d, or othe rwise pa

rtic ipate d in the pe rse c ution of” re ligious a n d e thnic m inoritie s, 8

1 Ha nna wa s gra nte d de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture be c a

use of his sta

t us a s a C ha lde an C hristia

n. 2U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42), ba se d on unre butte d doc um e n ta ry e vide nc e tha

t the R e public an Gua

rd wa s a n a ll-volunte e r forc e whic h ha d c om m i tte d a c ts of pe rse c ution during the

tim e of Ha

nna ’ s se rvic e , and Ha

nna fa ile d to te stify c re dibly
a bout his m e m

be rship or role in the R e public an Gua rd. The IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t Hanna ’ s lie s a

nd e va s ions a

bout his m e m

b e rship a nd atte m pts to minim iz e his role gave rise to a

ne g ative infe re n c e re ga

rding his time in the R e public an Gua rd wa s supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Although Ha nna ha d a n opportunity

to re but the prim a

fa c ie c a se , he fa ile d to introduc e witne sse s who
c ould substa

ntia te a portion of his c la im s, a

n d inste a d re lie d on his inc re dible and inc o nsiste nt te s tim ony , non-m a te ria l te stim ony from his wife , a

nd unc le ar m ilita

ry
re c o rds. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3