FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELVIS ACHU NDUM, No. 20-73481 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-187-604 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 7, 2021** Portland, Oregon Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Elvis Achu Ndum seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence.”). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may grant the petition only if “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 1. Ndum first challenges the adverse credibility determination underlying the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. A credibility determination should account for the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” which may include the applicant’s demeanor, candor, responsiveness, inconsistency, and any falsehoods. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We have held that, where, as here, a credible-fear interview bears “sufficient indicia of reliability,” inconsistencies between an applicant’s credible-fear interview and later testimony may form the basis of an adverse 2 credibility determination. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020). Contrary to Ndum’s argument, there is no indication that the report of the credible fear interview contained clerical errors. Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was based on various inconsistencies between Ndum’s credible-fear interview and his later testimony as well as implausibilities and omissions in the later testimony. In affirming the IJ, the BIA relied on this same reasoning. Because the BIA offered “a legitimate articulable basis” for upholding the adverse credibility determination, that was supported by “specific, cogent reason[s],” the BIA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002). Since we uphold the adverse credibility determination, Ndum’s challenges to the denial of his applications for asylum and for withholding of removal fail. “Without credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, [Ndum] cannot show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution” based on a protected ground. Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals