Malak Manes v. Jefferson Sessions

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MALAK MANES, No. 14-73313 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A201-106-391 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 12, 2017 San Francisco, California Filed November 27, 2017 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, A. Wallace Tashima, and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 2 MANES V. SESSIONS SUMMARY* Immigration The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal relief on adverse credibility grounds, concluding that the IJ’s demeanor findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in the documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between petitioner’s statements and other evidence of record, undermined his credibility. The panel held that there was sufficient evidence that the Board considered the country conditions reports, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the objective evidence of record alone was insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MANES V. SESSIONS 3 COUNSEL Morgan Russell (argued), Anne E. Peterson, and Robert Jobe, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Andrew B. Insenga (argued), Trial Attorney; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION PER CURIAM: Malak Manes, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Manes argues that he was persecuted in India because of his support for the India National Order Lok Dal (INLD), one of the country’s opposition political parties. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Manes’ petition. The Board affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. “Because credibility determinations are findings of fact by the IJ, they ‘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 afford a “healthy measure of deference 4 MANES V. SESSIONS to agency credibility determinations,” mindful that “IJs are in the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues that we cannot readily access [sic] on review.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). Under the REAL ID Act, which applies here, “there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals