Luther Nche v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 2 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUTHER NCHE, No. 19-73139
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-436-818
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND,***
District Judge.
Luther Nche, a citizen and native of Cameroon, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
*
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 Morrison C. England, Jr., United States Senior District
Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
We review adverse credibility findings under the substantial evidence
standard. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this
standard, we may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the petitioner presents
evidence that is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that he was
not credible.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Under the REAL ID Act, “[i]nconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the
heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility
determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, “even minor inconsistencies . . . may, when
considered collectively, deprive [the] claim of the requisite ring of truth, thereby
supplying substantial evidence that will sustain the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of relief on adverse credibility
grounds due to inconsistencies in the record. The IJ found, and the BIA affirmed,
that there were multiple non-trivial inconsistencies between Nche’s testimony and
2
documentary evidence. Specifically, the IJ identified conflicts between Nche’s
testimony and the medical record concerning the injuries he sustained from a
beating following the September 24, 2018, meeting, and whether the police,
military, or a mixed force had attacked him. Taken together, these inconsistencies
support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID Act, and thus, we
are not “compelled to conclude” that the IJ’s credibility determination was
erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because the IJ’s credibility finding was
supported by substantial evidence and because the record does not contain
sufficient independent, objective evidence to establish Nche is entitled to
protection under CAT, the denial of Nche’s applications for relief was proper. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156–57; Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.
Nche’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED as
moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION DENIED.
3