Hasim Mohamed Cassim v. Loretta E. Lynch , 641 F. App'x 763 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HASIM MOHAMED CASSIM; No. 13-73791
AFROZE AHMED SYED,
Agency Nos. A097-103-423
Petitioners, A072-404-423
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Hasim Mohamed Cassim, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, and Afroze
Ahmed Syed, a native and citizen of India, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, including adverse credibility findings. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d
969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Mohamed Cassim’s omission from his asylum application of his 1992
arrest and torture by police, as well as the affirmative misrepresentations he made
in his asylum application. See id. at 973-74 (omissions from petitioner’s
application supported adverse credibility determination); 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.”). Mohamed
Cassim’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at
974. Thus, we deny the petition as to asylum and withholding of removal. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Mohamed Cassim does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he
did not meaningfully contest the denial of CAT protection.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73791