NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 30 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOUBAKF DARME, AKA Boubacar No. 18-72457 Drame, 19-73094 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-930-085 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 8, 2020 Seattle, Washington Before: BERZON, MILLER, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge MILLER Dissent by Judge BERZON Boubacar Drame, whom the Board of Immigration Appeals identified as “Boubakf Darme,” petitions for review of the Board’s dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Drame also * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. petitions for review of the Board’s denial of his motion to remand, as well as its denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We consolidated Drame’s petitions, and we deny both. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding and, consequently, its conclusion that Drame is not entitled to asylum or withholding. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925–27 (9th Cir. 2020). The record reflects salient inconsistencies between Drame’s testimony and other statements concerning whether he was hospitalized after his half-brothers beat him, where he lived while arranging his departure from Senegal, and why he was unsafe at his mother’s house even though his half-brothers refused to go there. The explanations Drame advances for those inconsistencies are not “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that [he] was not credible.” Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)). And the agency reasonably relied on the summary of Drame’s credible-fear interview as an impeachment source because it bears sufficient indicia of reliability—it was “conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked,” and with the “aid of a[] [Wolof] interpreter.” Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 926; see also Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 211, 213–15 (B.I.A. 2018). 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny CAT 2 relief. An adverse credibility determination is not necessarily fatal to a CAT claim. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283–84 (9th Cir. 2001). But when the petitioner is found not credible, we may reverse the agency’s denial of CAT relief only if the record apart from the petitioner’s testimony compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the petitioner would be tortured. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010). Without the benefit of Drame’s testimony, the record does not compel that conclusion. Id. at 1049. Drame emphasizes that he submitted an expert report on country conditions along with his motion to remand, but the report stated that its analysis was “[b]ased on the events Mr. Drame …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals