NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRAMESH WOLI, No. 19-71284 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-061-035 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 10, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge. Pramesh Woli (Woli) is a native of Nepal. He alleges that his military status led Maoists to kidnap, assault, and attack him and his family, and that he cannot * 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. safely return to Nepal. He petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)1 affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility finding and dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court reviews the BIA’s dismissal for substantial evidence. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). We conclude substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal and accordingly, deny the petition. In order to determine whether a petitioner is entitled to relief, an IJ “may 1 In its decision, the BIA relied on the following grounds: (1) Woli’s evidence of his military status, which he claimed was the basis for his past persecution, was inadequate; (2) Woli’s testimony and documentary evidence contained inconsistencies regarding the methods used to harm him and the injuries he suffered; (3) Woli’s testimony and evidence regarding the duration and location of his sister’s second kidnapping contained inconsistencies; (4) Woli’s testimony and evidence regarding his wife’s alleged attack contained inconsistencies; and (5) Woli’s documentary and testimonial evidence contained other minor discrepancies, which taken together undermined his credibility. 2 The government argues that Woli waived several challenges because he did not exhaust them before the BIA. Woli challenged the adverse credibility finding, and argued that translator issues prejudiced his credibility, in his brief in front of the BIA. Accordingly, these issues were exhausted. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 2 weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In doing so, the IJ considers “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors[.]” Id. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of removal), 1229a(c)(4)(C) (all other relief). Here, the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals