NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUDASAR ASGHAR, No. 21-1290 Agency No. Petitioner, A203-681-527 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and McMAHON, District Judge.** Mudasar Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, appeals from a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not restate them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. petition. 1. “Taking the totality of the circumstances into account,” substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). The agency’s determination turns on implausible statements made at Asghar’s merits hearing and critical inconsistencies pertaining to his protection claim. For example, Asghar claimed he was unaware that he could obtain a visa to travel to the United States or enter the country at a land-based port of entry. However, the petitioner has an extended history of travel to multiple countries, including a months-long stay in Russia, and has obtained visas to travel to such countries. The agency properly deemed this statement, and others regarding Asghar’s ability to report his assault to police, implausible. The agency also identified multiple inconsistencies between statements made at Asghar’s credible fear interview and at his merits hearing. These inconsistencies, regarding Asghar’s reasons for leaving Pakistan, his prolonged stay in Russia, and his possible conversion to Shia Islam, are relevant to his protection claim and were not explained in his testimony, and though Asghar offered explanations for these inconsistencies at the hearing, the agency “reasonably reject[ed]” them or properly deemed them implausible. Barseghyan v. Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022). For example, at his credible fear interview, Asghar claimed that he never considered leaving Pakistan before he was assaulted in June 2019. Yet at his merits hearing, 2 21-1290 Asghar admitted to meeting in May with his travel agent, who “explain[ed] the possibility” of Asghar departing Pakistan for the United States.” This inconsistency relates directly to Asghar’s motivation for fleeing Pakistan and Asghar failed to adequately explain it in the hearing. Similarly, Asghar provided contradictory testimony about whether he converted to Shia Islam before leaving Pakistan. At his credible fear interview, Asghar stated that both he and his wife, Fatima Nadeem, were persecuted for “changing our sect from Sunni and Shia to Ahle-Tashi,” the latter of which is synonymous with Shia Islam. Yet, at …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals