NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Tadjoudine Fousseni; Hadidja No. 21-1420 Fousseni; Sadiatou Amidu, Agency Nos. A215-668-556 Petitioners, A215-668-531 A215-668-530 v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 21, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY***, District Judge. Lead Petitioner Tadjoudine Fousseni petitioned for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the * 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 Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 1. We review for substantial evidence both the BIA’s dismissal and the adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Credibility determinations are owed “special deference,” and we “will only exercise our power to grant a petition for review when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Fousseni failed to provide credible testimony to establish his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. In his application for asylum, Fousseni described three incidents that led him and his family to seek asylum. The BIA found that Fousseni offered inconsistent testimony on all three incidents. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. First, Fousseni gave inconsistent testimony on when, where, and how he was allegedly attacked in August 2012. Fousseni stated that he was not tied up during the alleged attack. But a corroborating witness stated that Fousseni was tied up. To explain the discrepancy, Fousseni stated that the witness had not actually observed the incident but had merely heard about it from Fousseni. And he offered no other explanation for the discrepancy. Second, Fousseni testified that his father was murdered while riding a 2 moped to the mosque. But his sworn declaration stated that his father was murdered while walking to the mosque. Foussenni also testified that somebody told him his father’s body was found in the bushes. But his declaration stated that he was with the search party that found his father’s body. Compounding the inconsistencies in his story, Fousseni testified that his father never made it to the mosque the day that he was murdered, but the asylum application his wife submitted stated that her father in-law was murdered while exiting the mosque. When asked why her application differed from her husband’s testimony, Fousseni’s wife …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals