FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOSSAIN ROBIUL, No. 21-70438 Petitioner, Agency No. A203-678-403 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Hossain Robiul, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). Where, as here, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s decision and added its own reasons, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). Several events informed the agency’s adverse credibility determination. For example, Petitioner testified that he was a publicity secretary for the Liberal Democratic Party (“LDP”). In that role, he distributed flyers, participated in rallies, and recruited other members. But Petitioner’s corroborating evidence, which included letters from various members of the LDP, did not mention that he was a publicity secretary. Petitioner does not offer any explanation for the discrepancy, nor does he offer any other corroborating evidence to support his testimony that he was a publicity secretary. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (“[I]n evaluating inconsistencies, the relevant circumstances that an IJ should consider include the petitioner’s explanation for a perceived inconsistency, and other record evidence that sheds light on whether there is in fact an inconsistency at all.” (citation omitted)). 2 As another example, Petitioner’s medical documentation was in English and did not include certificates of authenticity. Petitioner does not address the agency’s concerns regarding the reliability of his documents. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming adverse credibility finding based in part on unreliable documents). Further, the agency found Petitioner’s testimony that the police were looking for him while he was hiding outside of his home village implausible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account . . . .”). Petitioner argues that the agency’s determination was “pure speculation” and that it failed to consider the country conditions report. But the agency considered the “general country conditions of abuses by security forces” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals