N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DEEPAK KUM AR

M ALI, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70428 Age n c y No. A089-303-434 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 De c e m

be r 11, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r De e pak Kum ar M a li (“ M a li” ) pe t itions for re v ie w of the B o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ de c ision a ffirm ing de n ia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum

and 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2015 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 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).withholding of rem o v a l. 1 The im m igration judge (“ IJ” ) de te rm ine d M a li wa s not c re d ible b e c a

use his re pre se ntations c onc e rning his a nti-M a oist politic a l a c t ivism in Ne pa l c ould not bere c onc ile d with his lac k of knowle dge a

bout Ne pa le se politic s a n d the orga

niz a t i ons to whic h he c la im e d to be long. TheB o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) subse q ue ntly a ffirm e d on the s e grounds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(5). I To obta i n re ve rsa l unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, a pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te “ the e vide nc e . . . wa s so c om pe lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould fa il to find” in his fa vor. IN S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992). M a li ha s not m e t this de m anding sta nda rd. M a li c la im e d tha

t he wa s ra ise d in a

politic a lly

a c tive fam ily

and ha d be e n pa rtic i pating in politic a l de m onstra tions supporting the

anti-M a oist pa

rty a s e arly a s 1990, y e t he did not know his pa rty a c hie ve d a

m a jority in pa

rlia m e nt for the first tim e in 1991. Eve n m ore disturbingly , a lthough M a l i told the a sy lum offic e r that he c ould votein 1999 a

nd tha t he e ve n he lpe d distribute pam phle t s for the pa rty ’ s c andida

te s tha t y e ar, he c ould not re m e m be r the nam e of the ir loc a l

1 M a li doe s not c h a lle nge the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t he is ine l igible for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture ; thus, the c la im is wa ive d. Se e Husy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th C ir. 2008). 2c andida

te

— and e ve n na

m e d the opposition c andida te a s the one he supporte d. The IJ a l so de te rm ine d tha t M a li did not suffic ie ntly e xpla in his fa ilure to list his politic a l m e m

be rship on his visa

a pplic at ion— a

c onc lusion tha

t M a li doe s not c ha lle nge on a

ppe a l. The re c ord am

ply supports the

IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. M a li a rgue s tha t the B IA fa ile d to providehim with a re a sona

ble opportunity to e xpla in inc onsiste nc ie s in his te stim ony . B ut unlikethe c a se s c ite d by M a li, the re is no indic a tion theIJ re fuse d to c onside r his te stim ony or re fuse d him

an opportunity

to c l arify his story . M ore ove r, e ve n a s sum ing tha t M a li te stifie d c onsiste n tly

c onc e rning his a lte rc ations with M a oists, the R e a l ID Ac t spe c ific a lly instruc ts tha

t the IJ m ay

c onside r “ any

ina c c ura c ie s . . . without re ga rd to whe the r an inc onsiste nc y , ina c c ura c y , or fa lse hood goe s to the he art of the a pplic an t’ s c la im ” whe n a sse s sing c re d ibility . 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). The B IA de te rm i ne d tha

t M a li’ s la c k of knowle d ge of the politic a l orga niz ations in which he c la im e d m e m

be rship a nd c ha nging c ha ra c t e riz ations of his politic a l a c tivism we re suffic i e nt to unde rm ine his c re dibility . M a li ha s not shown a ny “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s ” tha t would “ justify ove rturning [tha

t ] a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation.” J

ibril v
. Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. 3