NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOUBACAR DIALLO, AKA Mamadou No. 17-72637 Saliou Diallo, Agency No. A209-165-659 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Boubacar Diallo, a native of the Ivory Coast and citizen of Guinea, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, based on inconsistencies within Diallo’s testimony as to the 2012 stabbing, and on the omission of the 2015 threats from his asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Diallo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Diallo’s corroborative evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Diallo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Diallo’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the BIA found not credible, and Diallo does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guinea. See 2 17-72637 id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-72637 17-72637 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Boubacar Diallo v. Matthew Whitaker 3 December 2018 Agency Unpublished fcec68c3afac2ca8befe4e83e371cd7adb278d86
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals