NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LYNETTE ASHEY AKAMIN, No. 20-70590 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-822-217 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 7, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Lynette Ashey Akamin, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the order of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”). We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings, including its adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). We deny the petition. 1. We conclude that, in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA relied on multiple proper reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. a. The BIA properly upheld the IJ’s reliance on two discrepancies between Akamin’s testimony and other statements in the record. First, the IJ noted that Akamin testified that, after she escaped from her second arrest for protesting Cameroon’s anti-Anglophone policies, the military came to her mother’s house and harassed her mother, but Akamin stated that she was not aware that the military went to any other relative’s house and her mother never told her that any other relative received such a visit. However, the affidavit from Akamin’s mother stated that authorities had harassed not only her but also her other family members. Second, the IJ observed that, although Akamin’s declaration had asserted that, after being released from her first arrest, Akamin had been forced to sign an undertaking that she would never participate in a strike again, Akamin did not mention that point in her direct-examination testimony. Akamin argues, with some force, that 2 there are reasonable explanations for these discrepancies and that the agency should not have relied on them to find her not to be credible. But we cannot say that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to accept these explanations, and the agency therefore permissibly concluded that these discrepancies supported an adverse credibility finding. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). b. The BIA also noted that the IJ found Akamin’s testimony relating to her escape from Cameroon to be implausible. For example, the IJ concluded that, even with the asserted assistance of a bribed police commissioner, it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals