Imad Hanna v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    NOV 16 2018
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IMAD HABEEB HANNA,                               No.   16-72480
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A212-191-367
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
    Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted November 8, 2018
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: TALLMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,** District Judge.
    Imad Habeeb Hanna, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of the
    Immigration Judge’s (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction based
    on 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
     and deny the petition.
    The agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
    evidence because the BIA and IJ identified multiple inconsistences between
    Hanna’s testimony about his service in the Iraqi Republican Guard and the
    background documentary evidence submitted, 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(iii), Singh
    v. Lynch, 
    802 F.3d 972
    , 975 (9th Cir. 2015), Hanna had previously lied to
    immigration officials, Singh v. Holder, 
    643 F.3d 1178
    , 1180 (9th Cir. 2011), and
    Hanna failed to offer easily available corroborating evidence, Sidhu v. I.N.S., 
    220 F.3d 1085
    , 1092 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended on denial of reh’g (Sept. 27, 2000).
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the evidence in
    the record indicates that the persecutor bar may apply to Hanna. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1240.8
    (d). Under either the test outlined in Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 
    449 F.3d 915
    , 925–30 (9th Cir. 2006), or the BIA’s test established in In Matter of
    D-R-, 
    27 I. & N. Dec. 105
    , 118–21 (BIA 2017), there was sufficient evidence to
    support a prima facie case that Hanna may have “ordered, incited, assisted, or
    otherwise participated in the persecution of” religious and ethnic minorities, 8
    1
    Hanna was granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against
    Torture because of his status as a Chaldean Christian.
    
    2 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(42), based on unrebutted documentary evidence that the
    Republican Guard was an all-volunteer force which had committed acts of
    persecution during the time of Hanna’s service, and Hanna failed to testify credibly
    about his membership or role in the Republican Guard. The IJ’s conclusion that
    Hanna’s lies and evasions about his membership and attempts to minimize his role
    gave rise to a negative inference regarding his time in the Republican Guard was
    supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although Hanna had an
    opportunity to rebut the prima facie case, he failed to introduce witnesses who
    could substantiate a portion of his claims, and instead relied on his incredible and
    inconsistent testimony, non-material testimony from his wife, and unclear military
    records.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3