NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDEEP MOHAMAD, No. 20-71105 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-276-492 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 16, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sandeep Mohamad, a citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and “review * 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). factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning [the IJ’s] adverse credibility determination.” (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005))). An IJ’s credibility findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). No evidence in the record “compel[s]” a contrary conclusion here. Id. An IJ “must have a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir. 1994)). Here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s identification of numerous inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony that undermined his credibility. First, Petitioner gave conflicting testimony about who threatened his family in 2016 after he had left India. In his declaration, Petitioner stated six times that his family was threatened by members of “Shiv Sena,” a Hindu nationalist political party in India. During his testimony, however, Petitioner stated that his family was 2 threatened by the “RSS” and the “police.” When asked if anyone else threatened his family, he replied, “no.” When confronted with this inconsistency, Petitioner claimed to not know what Shiv Sena is or why he identified them in his declaration, and he claimed to only know two parties in India: the BJP and RSS. He also suggested that Shiv Sena was the same as the RSS, which belied his assertion that he did not what Shiv Sena was. Further, the IJ found this explanation inconsistent with Petitioner’s own documentary evidence, which showed that Shiv Sena was a distinct political party from RSS (although they sometimes were allied). Additionally, Petitioner gave conflicting testimony regarding the first time …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals