NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MILLION KIDANE DEGOL, No. 17-72851 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-924-275 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 4, 2019** Portland, Oregon Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,*** District Judge. Million Kidane Degol (“Degol”), a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal * 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). *** The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations, and we review its factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2011). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Degol challenges both the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and her alternative holding that Degol’s testimony did not establish persecution on account of his political opinion. Because the BIA relied solely upon the IJ’s alternative holding to affirm the removal order, we lack jurisdiction to review the adverse credibility determination. Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663 (9th Cir. 2018) (limiting our review to the BIA decision). Accordingly, we dismiss Degol’s petition for review of the adverse credibility determination. The agency’s finding that Degol failed to establish that the security officers were motivated by his political opinion was supported by substantial evidence because the record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Garcia- Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). While Degol was kidnapped, imprisoned, and beaten by Eritrean security forces immediately after refusing to join the country’s ruling political party, his captors never clearly articulated their reasons for targeting him. Degol himself admitted that he was unsure of their motives. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s 2 finding that Degol failed to establish that his persecutors attacked him on account of his political opinion, we deny this portion of his petition for review.1 Petition DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART. 1 Although the dissent sets forth an alternative interpretation of the evidence, that interpretation does not compel us to reach a conclusion contrary to that reached by the agency. Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1031. 3 FILED Degol v. Barr, No. 17-72851 MAR 3 2020 Paez, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS I agree with the majority that we lack jurisdiction to review Degol’s credibility claims. However, I do not believe that substantial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals