NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SORYBA CISSE, No. 20-71333 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-828-204 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Soryba Cisse petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s “legal conclusions * 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). de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ found material, non-trivial omissions and inconsistencies between Cisse’s credible fear interview with an asylum officer and his hearing testimony, and between his documentary evidence and his hearing testimony. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011). Although Cisse alleged persecution on account of his religion, he did not mention religion in the prehearing interview or in the detailed written statement supporting his asylum application. Cisse did not simply fail to disclose details of the alleged persecution, he affirmatively denied threats or harm on account of his religion. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004), superseded by statute on other grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(b)(iii). The agency did not improperly rely on inconsistencies and omissions between Cisse’s prehearing interview and his hearing testimony. Unlike Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2010), “procedural safeguards” were in place to “ensure reliability,” including the administration of an oath at the outset of the interview, the presence of a translator, and the existence of a written record of the questions and answers. At the conclusion of the interview, Cisse agreed with 2 the asylum officer’s summary of his testimony and confirmed that he understood the questions and the interpreter. See Li, 378 F.3d at 962-63 (upholding adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between petitioner’s statements in airport interview and subsequent testimony); see also Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 211, 213 (B.I.A. 2018). The IJ found Cisse’s sworn statement to the asylum officer reliable and he did not contest that issue on appeal to the BIA. The agency also did not err in concluding that documentary evidence did not rehabilitate Cisse’s testimony or independently meet his burden of proof. In the absence of credible testimony or other evidence to meet his burden, Cisse’s asylum …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals