Court Opinion

ID: 9908108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 19:00:52.189324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:50.840561
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 7 2023
                                                                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROLINE NEKESA WERE,                          No. 22-1710
                                               Agency No.
              Petitioner,
                                               A216-246-968
  v.                                           MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted December 5, 2023 **
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: N.R. SMITH, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

       Caroline Were, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing her appeal of an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision, denying her applications for asylum,

       *    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **   The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1) and deny the petition.

      “We review the agency’s factual findings, including credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence.” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296

(9th Cir. 2022). “Under this standard, findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id.

(cleaned up). So “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify

overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Were’s internally inconsistent testimony regarding an alleged kidnapping,

inconsistencies between her declaration and testimony with respect to a threatening

phone call, and concerns about the authenticity of Were’s documentary evidence.

See id. at 1297 (“Inconsistencies in an applicant’s testimony may support an

adverse credibility determination.”); Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th

Cir. 2017) (lack of reliability of documents submitted to corroborate a petitioner’s

claims supports an IJ’s adverse credibility determination). Based on the totality of

the circumstances, Were’s arguments would not compel a reasonable adjudicator to

conclude differently. Dong, 50 F.4th at 1296.

      Were makes no argument that, in the absence of credible testimony, she

presented sufficient evidence in support of asylum or withholding of removal.

                                        2
Thus, that argument is forfeited. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–

80 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the BIA determined that Were did not meaningfully

challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, and Were’s opening brief does not

contest that determination. Therefore, Were forfeited any challenge to the denial

of relief under CAT. Id.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                      3