NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Wilson Fomunyoh Atud, No. 21-1087 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-742-974 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Wilson Atud Fomunyoh (“Atud”) petitions for review of the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Atud also challenges the finding that his asylum claim was frivolous. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision but “did not merely * 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). provide a boilerplate opinion,” Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), we review both decisions. See Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Atud claims that he is an Anglophone teacher who fled Cameroon after being twice detained and brutally beaten by police because he helped organize protests as a member of the Teachers’ Trade Union (“Union”). It is undisputed that the Cameroonian government met these protests with fierce repression, including killing protestors. In support of his claims for relief from removal, Atud offered six sworn affidavits, including one from a Union official; a letter from the hospital where he was allegedly admitted after his second arrest; and his government-issued “Diploma of Senior Youth and Action Instructor.” Atud’s counsel also attempted to submit a letter of appointment certifying Atud’s post as a teacher in Bamenda, but the IJ did not admit the document because it was in French and had not been translated. In turn, the government submitted a 2011 non-immigrant visa application (“NIV application”), in which Atud stated that he was a civil engineer. 1. Adverse Credibility Finding. The denials of Atud’s claims for relief rest on the IJ’s determination that Atud was not credible. Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and require a “healthy measure of deference,” id. at 1041. Because the credibility determination must take “the totality of the circumstances” into account, Kumar, 18 F.4th at 1152–53, the IJ is required to 2 21-1087 “consider and address, as necessary or otherwise appropriate, relevant evidence that tends to contravene a conclusion that a given factor undermines credibility,” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. Here, the IJ failed to consider credible evidence that strongly suggested Atud was a teacher involved in protests who was subsequently arrested, beaten, and forced into hiding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. This evidence includes Atud’s government-issued “youth instructor” diploma, secondary school transcripts with dates …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals