NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-1730 ____________ EFOSA MABEL AKINWALE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A201-586-059) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) On November 20, 2020 Before: AMBRO, BIBAS and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 14, 2021) O P I N I ON * * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge: Efosa Akinwale petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the record supports the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination and the BIA sufficiently addressed Akinwale’s arguments, we will deny her petition. I On March 23, 2019, Akinwale came to the United States from Nigeria, seeking asylum and protection under the CAT. She alleges, among other things, that, in February and March 2019, she was threatened and/or attacked by the Oro (a Nigerian religious cult) in retaliation for witnessing an Oro religious festival (which is punishable by human sacrifice). She also alleges that she was threatened with imprisonment for harboring a lesbian woman fleeing mob violence in February 2019. The IJ found that Akinwale was not credible because she repeatedly contradicted herself and other evidence, especially regarding the Oro incidences, and, in any event, she failed to meet her burden to obtain asylum or relief under the CAT. The BIA affirmed. II Akinwale was required to show a credible fear of persecution or that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to Nigeria. 1 In assessing an applicant’s claims, the IJ and BIA “may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of 1 Ordonez-Tevalan v. Attorney Gen., 837 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2016). 2 record.” 2 We review the BIA’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. 3 First, Akinwale argues that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. If anything, the BIA’s description of Akinwale’s inconsistencies was charitable. Akinwale’s neighbor, Mr. Johnson, stated in an affidavit that the ritual occurred in January 2019. By contrast, Akinwale stated in her credible fear interview that she witnessed the ritual and was chased into her house in “the second week of February 2019,” and then “threatened” again “a week later” in “March 2019.” 4 In her declaration, however, she implied that there was only one Oro incident, that it occurred in March 2019, and that she was not merely threatened but also “dragged . . . outside and . . . beat[en].” 5 In her asylum application, she again referred to only one incident, but stated that it occurred in February. Although Akinwale offers plausible explanations for some of these inconsistencies, e.g., that the attacks were ongoing between February and March …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals