NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AARON OTTOP AKWO, No. 20-71120 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-742-902 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: BEA, BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Aaron Ottop Akwo, a Cameroon citizen, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence and * 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). may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed under the same standard. See id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Akwo was not credible. “[A]n adverse credibility determination must be made after considering ‘the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). In assessing Akwo’s credibility, the IJ could thus consider the consistency between Akwo’s testimony and “other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ identified three inconsistencies between Akwo’s testimony and his nonimmigrant visa application, and substantial evidence supports each finding. First, Akwo’s testimony and his application for asylum and withholding of removal conflicted with his visa application about whether he lived in Gabon instead of Cameroon, which raised obvious questions as to how he could have been harmed in Cameroon as he claimed. Second, Akwo’s testimony featured inconsistencies as to how much time he spent in Gabon. And third, Akwo admitted during cross- examination that before his most recent visa application he had unsuccessfully applied three times for a nonimmigrant visa, yet he had previously claimed that he had never been denied a visa. These inconsistencies were material to Akwo’s claims 2 and supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–44. The IJ also found that Akwo’s demeanor during his testimony undercut his credibility. Substantial evidence supports that finding as well, which lends further support to the IJ’s overall adverse credibility determination. We typically “give special deference to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor.” Singh- Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted). That deference is appropriate here because the IJ noted specific, non- verbal reasons for the demeanor finding such as Akwo not responding to a question “at first” and then “after a lengthy pause” stating he did not know the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals