FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2021 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SARFRAZ AKHTAR, No. 19-70946 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-908-920 v. ORDER JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. The memorandum disposition filed on November 10, 2020, is hereby amended concurrent with the filing of the amended disposition today. With this amendment, no new petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc may be filed. FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SARFRAZ AKHTAR, No. 19-70946 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-908-920 v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 30, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Sarfraz Akhtar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny Akhtar’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review. 1. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. The Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act (Form I-867), prepared by an immigration officer in expedited removal proceedings after Akhtar attempted to enter the United States, stated that Akhtar answered “Yes” to the questions “Have you ever been in the Pakistan military?” and “Have you ever had any type of weapons training or military training?”. During his hearing before the IJ, however, Akhtar denied having served in the military in Pakistan. Akhtar was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy, but stated only that he “never said that” or “it happened by error.” The Form I-867 has “indicia of reliability,” Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005), including that it was made under oath and with the assistance of an interpreter, that Akhtar was given an opportunity to read (or have read to him) the information in the Form I-867, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i), and that he initialed and signed each page. Cf. Singh, 403 F.3d at 1089 (noting an assessment to refer did “not contain any record of the questions and answers” and was “only a short, conclusory summary—essentially, an opinion”). Moreover, Akhtar did not challenge the admission or reliability of the Form I-867 in immigration 2 proceedings. Therefore, the Form I-867 constitutes substantial record evidence. See id. The IJ was not compelled to accept the explanation for the inconsistency given by Akhtar. Because Akhtar did not argue that documentary evidence alone was sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, the BIA properly denied Akhtar’s application for asylum after affirming ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals