Masood v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANA MUHAMMAD MASOOD, No. 07-72633
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-620-974
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 13, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,
District Judge.**
Rana Muhammad Masood (“Masood”) petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Southern Texas, Houston, sitting by designation.
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. Because the
parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the petition, we need
not recount it here.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) supported her adverse credibility
determination with “specific” and “cogent” reasons going to the “heart” of
Masood’s claims. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). For example,
the IJ noted inconsistencies in Masood’s testimony about his political activities and
knowledge: Masood twice changed his testimony about the year he became an area
president; neither the constituency he claimed to have voted in, nor the candidate
he claimed to have voted for, appeared in the October 2002 election results; and, in
his asylum interview, Masood misidentified common abbreviations in Pakistani
politics. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings, which go to the heart of
Masood’s claims. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004)
(noting that petitioner’s lack of political knowledge and incorrect statements
supported an adverse credibility finding); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial
evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim of persecution, we are bound
to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”).
2
The remaining record evidence would not compel any reasonable factfinder
to find that Masood established his eligibility for relief. See Singh, 367 F.3d at
1143.
PETITION DENIED.
3