Satya Neupane v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 15 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATYA DEVI NEUPANE, No. 17-70316
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-472-917
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WU,*** District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Neupane, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s
decision and adopted it as its own, we review both decisions. Molina–Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002).
“We review questions of law de novo and factual determinations for
substantial evidence.” Amaya v. Garland, 15 F.4th 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2021).
Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Neupane’s testimonial and documentary
evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[Petitioner]’s inability to consistently describe the underlying events that gave
rise to his fear was an important factor that could be relied upon by the IJ in
making an adverse credibility determination.”). These inconsistencies relate to the
truthfulness of the circumstances surrounding Neupane’s alleged persecution by
the government and, therefore, go to the heart of her claims for relief. See id. at
2
1046–47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the
petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is
of great weight.”).
The agency afforded Neupane an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies
but reasonably found that her explanations were unpersuasive. See Aguilar Fermin
v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020) (concluding adverse credibility
determination must stand where IJ and BIA identified inconsistencies and
implausibilities in petitioner’s account, and petitioner’s explanations for the
inconsistencies were unconvincing), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 664 (2020);
Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining “[t]he IJ
did not have to accept [petitioner]’s unpersuasive explanations for the[ ]
inconsistencies”).
Given the inconsistencies in the record and the petitioner’s failure to
adequately explain them, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. Absent Neupane’s discredited testimony, the
remaining evidence does not compel the conclusion that she is eligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT.
PETITION DENIED.
3