N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M UHAM M A D ASIF SHER A a n d ANALYN R

AM O S SHER

A, Pe titione rs,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70877 Age n c y Nos. A089-719-904

A078-113-403
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

M ay 12, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT, IKUTA, a nd WATFORD , C irc u i t Judge s. 1. The Im

m igrat ion Judgefound M uha m m a d Asif She ra ’ s te stim ony in support of his a

pplic ation for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l not c re dible
. The B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (B IA) uphe ld tha t finding, a

nd substa ntia l 

# FIL ED MAY19 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 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).Pa ge 2 of 3

e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de te rm ination. TheB IA pe rm issibly re l ie d on the fa c t that She ra sa id he fle d Pakista

n be c a use he wa s be ing pe rse c ute d by m e m be rs of a politic a l group, the M utta h i da Qua m i M aha z (M Q M -A), but the n re turne d to Pakista n on a t le a st four oc c a sions. Se e Loho v . Muk ase y , 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18 (9th C ir. 2008). TheB IA a l so pe rm issibly found tha

t a polic e re port She ra subm itte d a s e vide nc e of a lle ge d pe rse c ution in fa c t unde rm ine d his c la im tha t, during one of the se trips, M QM -A m e m be rs with guns a

tta c k e d him on the stre e t. Se e Goe l v . Gonzale

s , 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th C ir. 2007). She ra did not pre s e nt
e vide nc e from fam ily

m e m be rs to c o rroborate his te s tim ony , de spite the fa c t tha t the y live d ne arby

and thus we re pre sum a

bly ava ila ble to te s tify
. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii). W ithout c re dible te s tim ony , She ra ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he is e ligiblefor a sy lum

or withholding. S

e e J ieC ui v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1332, 1337–38 (9th C ir. 2013). W e the re fore ne e d not a ddre ss the othe r grounds upon whic h the B IA de nie d re lie f. 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de t e rm i nation tha t She ra is not e ligiblefor re l ie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). In light of the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination, She ra

fa i le d to show tha

t a ny pa s t pe rse c ution he m ay

have suffe re d rose to the le ve l of torture or tha t suc h c onduc t
wa s pe rpe trate d

by or with thea c quie sc e n c e of the Pakista ni gove rnm e nt. Se ePa ge 3 of 3

Ahme d v . K e isle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th C ir. 2007); Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th C ir. 2003). 3. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing She ra ’ s m otion to
re m and. Although Shera

a lle ge d tha

t his prior c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e re sulte d in the de nia l of his a pplic at ion, he did not c om ply with theproc e dura l
re quire m e nts for bringing tha t c la im
. Se e Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637, 639 (B IA 1988). Nor wa s prior c ounse l’ s a lle ge d ine ffe c tive ne ss pla i n on the fa c e of the re c ord. Se e C

astillo-Pe re

z v . I.N .S. , 212 F.3d 518, 525–26 (9th C ir. 2000). In a ddition, the

B IA prope rly

de te rm ine d tha

t a ny c ha nge s in c ountry

c onditions did not wa

rrant re m and, a s the y

did not re late to She ra ’ s c l a im tha t he would be pe rse c ute d by

the M Q M -A or e sta

blish prima fac ie e ligibility for C AT re lie f. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.