Alam Khosru v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 639 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAM KHOSRU, AKA Ratan Mollah, No. 13-71026
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-483-479
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alam Khosru, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Khosru’s procedural due process contention
because he did not present it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Khosru’s filing and pursuit of two prior asylum applications that he
admitted were fraudulent. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; Dhital v. Mukasey, 532
F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2008) (prior fraudulent asylum claim supported
adverse credibility finding); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt
on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). The record does not support
Khosru’s contentions that the agency failed to consider the totality of the
circumstances or otherwise improperly analyzed his claims. Khosru’s
explanations for his prior false statements do not compel the opposite result. See
2 13-71026
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, Khosru’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Khosru’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and Khosru does not point to any other
evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Bangladesh. See id. at 1156-57. We reject Khosru’s contentions that the agency
did not analyze his claim properly. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (agency adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-71026