FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJENDRA SHERCHAN, No. 11-73254 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-302-298 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted, Submission Deferred February 12, 2015** Resubmitted August 13, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,*** District Judge. * 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 Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. Rajendra Sherchan, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for withholding of removal.1 Specifically, Sherchan challenges the BIA’s conclusion, relying on an earlier immigration judge (“IJ”) finding, that Sherchan’s claims of past persecution were not credible. Where, as here, the BIA largely adopts the reasoning of the IJ in “simple statement[s] of conclusion,” Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), we review both decisions and use the IJ’s reasoning as “a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Avetova-Elisseva, 213 F.3d at 1197). We review the factual findings underlying the decisions — in this case, the adverse credibility determinations — for substantial evidence. Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination in this case. As the BIA and IJ noted, Sherchan gave conflicting accounts of where an attack took place and how he knew his alleged attackers’ identities. He was given 1 In his opening (and only) brief, Sherchan does not challenge the denial of his asylum application as time-barred or the determination that he is not entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore address only his claim for withholding of removal. 2 an appropriate opportunity to explain these discrepancies, see Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), and could not. Sherchan also testified inconsistently about who reported the most serious attack to the police — whether he did, as he first said; or his father, as he later said; or his wife, whose name was on the police report. The BIA and IJ also reasonably found that letters arguably corroborating Sherchan’s account were not credible evidence. Sherchan testified that the letters were provided by various organizations to “condemn” the attacks against him. But when given the opportunity, Sherchan could not explain why these organizations would furnish him with private “condemnation” letters not meant for wider publication. Sherchan testified that a friend provided him with one ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals