Alhaji Tunkara v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALHAJI MOHAMED TUNKARA, No. 08-72554
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-600-343
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2010**
Seattle, Washington
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Alhaji Mohamed Tunkara petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ decision affirming the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We review the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse
credibility findings and determinations of asylum eligibility for substantial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-2-
evidence. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition.
The record evidence would not compel a reasonable finder of fact to
overturn the adverse credibility findings here. Tunkara inconsistently described
the rebels’ motivation for their attacks on his family, an issue that went to the heart
of his asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b)(1) (stating that a petitioner
must establish that he suffered past persecution “on account of” a protected
ground). We therefore defer to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because he
established a “legitimate, articulable basis” for questioning Tunkara’s credibility
that went to the heart of his claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Moreover, substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA’s alternative
findings that even if Tunkara had been credible, he failed to establish persecution
on a protected ground. Tunkara’s testimony would have established that his family
was not politically active, and he failed to point to any actions demonstrating that
the rebels imputed a political opinion to him. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 659
(9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s further conclusion
that country conditions in Sierra Leone had changed so that Tunkara no longer had
a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286.
-3-
We decline to address Tunkara’s arguments concerning withholding of
removal and CAT relief, which he failed to raise before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.