NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 28 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DODY ADRIANTO WIDODO, AKA No. 18-70922 Chloe London, Agency No. A089-608-147 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,*** District Judge. Dody Adrianto Widodo, aka Chloe London, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** This appeal is ordered submitted on the briefs as of April 15, 2020, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). In general, adverse credibility findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistent testimony between Widodo’s first and last merits hearings regarding the harm she experienced in Indonesia. “[A]n adverse credibility determination may be supported by omissions that are not details, but new allegations that tell a much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than [the] initial application.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 2 Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Widodo testified at her 2017 merits hearing to several dramatic incidents of harm that she experienced in Indonesia. Widodo did not describe any of those incidents at her 2013 merits hearing, even though she was asked twice why she was afraid to return to Indonesia. Instead, she answered that she would have trouble finding a job, would have reduced educational opportunities, would not be permitted to undergo genital surgery, and would generally have less freedom than in the United States. Moreover, the two reasons that Widodo gave for failing to mention the incidents during the first hearing do not compel us to reverse the BIA’s credibility finding. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088. First, she explained that she forgot about the incidents of harm when asked at her 2013 hearing, but we have previously rejected such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals