NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALEX VALENTIN; TWESSIE No. 20-70986 VALENTIN, Agency Nos. A209-875-928 Petitioners, A209-875-929 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 13, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,** District Judge. Valex Valentin (“Petitioner”) and his minor daughter Twessie Valentin, both natives and citizens of Haiti, petition for review of an order entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. their applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner’s testimony about the events underlying his claimed fear of persecution conflicted with his supporting documentation. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioner testified, for example, that he was in a state of shock and diminished consciousness following the attack, but a purported witness interview from that night suggests a highly aware and articulate interviewee. Given his testimony, the agency reasonably concluded that Petitioner could not have had the wherewithal required to make the statements attributed to him in the Magistrate’s report. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). That inconsistency was not trivial, but rather went to the heart of his claim. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046–47. Petitioner asserts that he was not fully unconscious, but that does not undermine the agency’s conclusion that his “altered state” rendered him insufficiently conscious to make the statements contained in the “verbatim transcript.” The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See 1 Below, Twessie Valentin relied on her father’s testimony and supporting documentation as support for her own asylum application. We therefore focus our analysis on that evidence, but our disposition applies equally to both petitioners. 2 Garcia, 749 F.3d at 789. The agency identified additional inconsistencies between Petitioner’s testimony and supporting documentation, including conflicts as to when the attack occurred. Petitioner suggests that any inconsistencies were trivial. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2011). But “even minor inconsistencies going to the heart of a petitioner’s claim may, when considered collectively, deprive the claim of the requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Manes, 875 F.3d at 1265 (“Given the relevance of these documents to [the petitioner’s] claim, even …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals