Omer v. Gonzales , 157 F. App'x 726 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 12, 2005
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_________________
No. 04-60731
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
NAGAT AHMED OMER; KHALID MOHAMED ELKHATI SIDDIG; REEM MOHAMED
ELKHATI SIDDIG; AMRO MOHAMED ELKHATI SIDDIG,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R GONZALES, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A96 098 254
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nagat Omer (“Omer”) and her children (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition for review of the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
denial of asylum by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”). In its denial, the BIA specifically
adopted the findings of the Immigration Judge (IJ), including a finding that Omer, the only witness
at Petitioners’ removal hearing, was not credible. Petitioners argue that the credibility determination
is not supported by substantial evidence.
Under substantial evidence review, this court will not disturb factual findings of the BIA
unless we “find not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but that the evidence
compels it.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In
making a credibility determination, the fact-finder should consider the “totality of the circumstances”
and may base its decision on, inter alia, the witness’s demeanor, the “inherent plausibility” of the
witness’s account, the internal consistency of the account, and the consistency of the account with
other evidence. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(iii).
The record does not compel this court to find Omer credible on the basis of these factors. As
the IJ discussed in his decision, there were multiple inconsistencies between Omer’s written
application and her testimony at the removal hearing. For example, Omer’s application stated that,
after being arrested three times and beaten by police at least once in the 1980's, she left Sudan in 1985
and did not return until 1999. At the hearing, she revealed that she had actually visited Sudan at least
four times during those years for extended family vacations. The IJ, noting the inconsistency, stated
that he did not believe a reasonable person who had been treated as Omer was by police would
vacation in the country where he or she had been abused. We cannot say that Omer’s testimony was
inherently plausible or that her two accounts were consistent.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not disturb the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Because
Petitioners’ asylum application depends on Omer’s testimony, we conclude that they have not
-2-
demonstrated their eligibility for asylum and accordingly DENY their petition for review.
-3-