NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAMBAL KHAN, No. 17-73101 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-876-159 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 24, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,** District Judge. Hambal Khan petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the [Board’s] determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Khan argues that the denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims should be reversed because the denial rests on an adverse credibility determination that is not supported by substantial evidence. However, as long as an adverse credibility finding is based on “specific and cogent reasons,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041–43 (9th Cir. 2010), it is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the adverse credibility finding is based on specific and cogent reasons. For example, Khan altered a police report before submitting it to the immigration court—and only admitted to altering it (supposedly, to “correct” the dates) upon on cross-examination by the Government. The original, unaltered dates on the police report undermine Khan’s assertion that he fled Pakistan immediately after an 2 incident involving gunfire outside of his house. Khan also inconsistently described himself both as a “common worker” in his political party and as a prominent person in the party who would often appear on stage with the local mayor. Although Khan was afforded ample opportunity to explain this inconsistency, cf. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009), Khan failed to explain why he was prominent enough to be threatened by the president of a rival political party, yet not prominent enough to receive protection from the local government—which was allegedly controlled by his party and declined to help him on the ground that he was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals