FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 8 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GULSHAN KUMAR SHARMA, No. 19-72307 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-822-997 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District Judge. Gulshan Kumar Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief. We deny the petition. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The agency must provide “specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination,” and consider the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. Id. at 1044 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We may not reverse the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if at least one of the reasons given by the agency supports that determination. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sharma was not credible, including implausible aspects of his account of persecution, the lack of detail surrounding key aspects of his story, and the omission of pertinent details from his asylum application. For example, the BIA noted that the IJ found it “troubling that the respondent could not recall the name of the lender that he claimed was persecuting him and has connections with the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”).” In this petition, Sharma does not argue that the inability to remember the 2 name of the alleged money lender who persecuted him does not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination. Rather, he argues that the IJ “erred in concluding that Petitioner could not recall the persecutor’s name” because the record “show[s] that Petitioner was not asked to provide lender’s name.” Sharma’s argument is unpersuasive. The record testimony that Sharma cites for the proposition that he was not asked to provide the money lender’s name clearly shows that he was so asked. In the relevant portion of testimony, Sharma’s lawyer asked him: “Okay. And this individual you borrowed money from, what was his name?” Sharma responded: “I do not remember his name now.” A trier of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals