FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENESS FALA MUKULUMBUTU, No. 19-72499 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A213-077-271 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 4, 2020 * Pasadena, California Filed October 13, 2020 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra, ** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Gould * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. 2 MUKULUMBUTU V. BARR SUMMARY *** Immigration Denying Keness Fala Mukulumbutu’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s order of removal, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum and withholding of removal on adverse credibility grounds, and supported the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture based on the lack of credible testimony and insufficient evidence regarding the likelihood of torture in the Democratic Republic of Congo to meet the burden of proof. The panel held that there was sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the Board and this court to consider Mukulumbutu’s interviews with a Customs and Border Patrol officer and an asylum officer because both interviews were conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked, and transcribed either by a French-speaking officer or with the aid of an interpreter. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies, an omission, and implausibilities in the record. The panel further held that substantial evidence supported the determination that Mukulumbutu failed to rehabilitate his testimony with sufficient corroborating evidence, and that the Board did not err in concluding that some of the evidence *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MUKULUMBUTU V. BARR 3 Mukulumbutu provided was entitled to limited weight because it was from interested parties, none of whom were available for cross-examination. The panel concluded that, without credible testimony, Mukulumbutu, could not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum and withholding relief, and that the country conditions reports for the Democratic Republic of Congo and other corroborating evidence in the record did not meet the high threshold of establishing eligibility for CAT relief. The panel rejected Mukulumbutu’s due process claims based on transcription problems and the agency’s failure to consider testimony from his credible fear hearing, on the grounds that he failed to show prejudice. COUNSEL Elizabeth A. Lopez, Southern California Immigration Project, San Diego, California, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; William C. Minick, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. 4 MUKULUMBUTU V. BARR OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: Keness ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals