NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EISSA AL HAJJAJE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71498 

Agency No. A216-627-423 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 13, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Eissa Al Hajjaje, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

SEP 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

factual findings. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). “Factual

findings ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 

conclude to the contrary.’” Id., quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the 

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

The agency identified four bases that support the adverse credibility determination

considering the totality of the circumstances: (1) Al Hajjaje’s misrepresentations to 

immigration officials, including when he attempted to enter the United States by 

using a U.S. passport issued to another person; (2) Al Hajjaje’s implausible 

testimony alleging that his torturers armed him with multiple weapons immediately 

after torturing him; (3) his unresponsiveness to questions on numerous occasions; 

and (4) his demeanor, such as when he became visibly agitated and glared at the 

government’s counsel during the hearing. The record does not compel the 

conclusion that the adverse credibility determination was erroneous. See Iman v. 

Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Under this standard, only the most 

extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility 

determination.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). In the absence of credible 

testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility 

for asylum and withholding of removal. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 

(9th Cir. 2017).
3 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection. Al 

Hajjaje’s CAT claim is based on the same underlying testimony found to be not 

credible. “But when the petitioner’s ‘testimony [is] found not credible, to reverse 

the BIA’s decision [denying CAT protection,] we would have to find that the reports 

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

tortured.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations 

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

The documentary record does not compel the conclusion that Al Hajjaje “personally

will face torture” if returned to Yemen. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 928 

(9th Cir. 2020); see also Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 923 (denying CAT relief where 

evidence confirmed that torture takes place in the petitioner’s home country but did 

not compel the conclusion that the petitioner would face a particularized threat of 

torture).

We need not reach the issue of the agency’s application of the terrorism bar 

to Al Hajjaje because the other grounds for denial are dispositive.

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

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

The petition for review is DENIED.