Adeogba v. Holder , 423 F. App'x 734 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ADENIRAN ADEOGBA, No. 06-73675
Petitioner, Agency No. A022-940-785
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Richard Adeniran Adeogba, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252
*
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).
and Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2008) (this court
retains jurisdiction to review a claim under CAT notwithstanding that a petitioner
has been ordered removed based on an aggravated felony conviction). We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility findings, Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review de novo
constitutional due process challenges, Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding
because although Adeogba testified that he worked as a journalist in Nigeria, he
had previously claimed during criminal proceedings that he was trained as a
computer programmer and worked as a computer system analyst in Nigeria. This
discrepancy goes to the heart of his claim because Adeogba contends that he was
tortured in the past and will be subjected to torture if returned to Nigeria because of
his work as a journalist opposing the government. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (as long as one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, we are bound to accept the
agency’s adverse credibility finding).
Contrary to Adeogba’s contention, the agency had authority to make an
adverse credibility finding. See Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1, 6 n.13 (1961)
2 06-73675
(noting that “whenever a witness takes the stand, he necessarily puts the
genuineness of his demeanor into issue,” because the witness’s “credibility is in
issue whenever he testifies”). Also contrary to Adeogba’s contention, there is no
indication that the agency applied the REAL ID Act in making the adverse
credibility finding.
Adeogba’s removal to Nigeria will not violate CAT. The documentary
country conditions evidence does not compel the conclusion that he would be
tortured by or at the acquiescence of the Nigerian government because the adverse
credibility finding goes directly to the reason he contends he would be tortured.
See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006) (documentary
evidence of human rights abuses in Yemen does not compel conclusion that
petitioner is entitled to CAT relief where petitioner has been found not credible).
Adeogba’s due process contention fails because the agency did not commit
error in addressing his credibility. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-73675