FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 13 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIVALSON GEFFRARD, No. 18-70445 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-875-470 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 10, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge. Sivalson Geffrard (Petitioner), a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) summarily affirming the denial of his 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. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) when the Board summarily affirms that decision. See Ming Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2018). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, and we may reverse only when “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Given the “healthy measure of deference to agency credibility determinations” that the REAL ID Act requires, id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding adverse credibility finding where inconsistency was relevant to “the crux of [petitioner’s] application for relief”). The record establishes that Petitioner was inconsistent about the timing of the attack that led to his departure, and he failed to explain that inconsistency. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that inconsistencies regarding timing of events leading up to petitioner’s departure are not trivial). In his credible fear interview and asylum application, Petitioner stated 2 that he was attacked by a mob “the same day” as the day his partner was killed. Yet, Petitioner testified at his merits hearing that the mob “attempted to kill [him],” when it returned “two days later.” Petitioner also testified inconsistently that the mob searched for him on December 9, 2014, and returned for him on December, 12, 2014, three days later. Petitioner also conceded that he told a Customs and Border Patrol officer that he did not fear persecution if returned to Haiti. His statement corroborates the adverse credibility determination because Petitioner made the statement while unaware of the evidence needed to support an asylum claim. Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination, Petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.1 See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 2017) (upholding denial of asylum based on adverse credibility determination); see also Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals