Abdi Ali v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ABDI BARKADLE ALI, No. 13-73620
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-749-040
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Abdi Barkadle Ali, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
in light of inconsistencies between Ali’s written application and his testimony
regarding whether he suffered beatings during his first arrest and detention, the
length of that detention, and whether the authorities arrested him a third time in
July, 2009. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”); see also Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-40 (9th
Cir. 2014) (single inconsistency between declaration and testimony supported
adverse credibility determination). Ali’s explanations for the inconsistencies do
not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ali’s contentions that he was not afforded an
opportunity to explain his “seemingly inconsistent statements” regarding the length
of his first detention and whether he was arrested a third time because he did not
exhaust those claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Ali’s asylum
2 13-73620
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ali’s CAT
claim because it was premised on the same statements found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Ali
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Ethiopia. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73620