FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SARFRAZ AKHTAR, No. 19-70946 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-908-920 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 30, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Sarfraz Akhtar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny Akhtar’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. The Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act (Form I-867), prepared by an immigration officer in expedited removal proceedings after Akhtar attempted to enter the United States, stated that Akhtar answered “Yes” to the questions “Have you ever been in the Pakistan military?” and “Have you ever had any type of weapons training or military training?”. During his hearing before the IJ, however, Akhtar denied having served in the military in Pakistan. Akhtar was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy, but stated only that he “never said that” or “it happened by error.” The Form I-867 has “indicia of reliability,” Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005), including that it was made under oath and with the assistance of an interpreter, that Akhtar was given an opportunity to read (or have read to him) the information in the Form I-867, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i), and that he initialed and signed each page. Cf. Singh, 403 F.3d at 1089 (noting an assessment to refer did “not contain any record of the questions and answers” and was “only a short, conclusory summary—essentially, an opinion”). Moreover, Akhtar did not challenge the admission or reliability of the Form I-867 in immigration proceedings. Therefore, the Form I-867 constitutes substantial record evidence. See id. The IJ was not compelled to accept the explanation for the inconsistency 2 given by Akhtar. “[W]e must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).1 Because Akhtar did not argue that documentary evidence alone was sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, the BIA properly denied Akhtar’s application for asylum after affirming the adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) 2. The IJ’s denial of withholding of removal on the ground that Akhtar did not show it was more likely than not he would face future persecution in Pakistan was also supported by substantial evidence.2 Substantial evidence supports the determination ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals