Serijanti Kusnanto v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERIJANTI KUSNANTO, No. 11-73445 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-127-717 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 13, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner, Serijanti Kusnanto (“Kusnanto”), a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”)’s order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review adverse credibility determinations and the denial of asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT for substantial evidence. Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination); Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (asylum and withholding of removal); Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (Convention Against Torture). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review. 1. Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Kusnanto’s application, “there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible.” Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). The IJ’s credibility determination is based on the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including the applicant’s “candor, or responsiveness,” the “consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements,” and “the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[A]ny inaccuracies, omissions of detail, or inconsistencies found by the IJ, regardless of whether they go to the ‘heart’ of a petitioner’s claim, may support an adverse credibility finding.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on two omissions from Kusnanto’s original asylum application that were added later via amendment. The IJ concluded that Kusnanto failed to mention the two incidents that occurred in 2006 to the asylum officer, and that such an 2 omission was suspicious, especially considering the two incidents are “the strongest evidence in support of an otherwise weak asylum claim.” These two incidents tell a more compelling story of persecution than the events discussed in Kusnanto’s original asylum application. Omissions that tell a “much different and more compelling story of persecution than [the] initial application” can properly form the basis for an adverse credibility finding. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion, we decline to reverse the IJ’s credibility determination. Zi Lin Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding adverse credibility determinations are reversed only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion). 2. Even if Kusnanto ...

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