and Submitted September 12, 2017 San Francisco, California
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals Agency No. A201-106-391
Russell (argued), Anne E. Peterson, and Robert Jobe, Law
Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, California, for
B. Insenga (argued), Trial Attorney; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.; for Respondent.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, A. Wallace Tashima, and Paul J.
Watford, Circuit Judges.
panel denied a petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration
judge's adverse credibility determination and denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's
denial of asylum and withholding of removal relief on adverse
credibility grounds, concluding that the IJ's demeanor
findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ
provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in
the documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between
petitioner's statements and other evidence of record,
undermined his credibility.
panel held that there was sufficient evidence that the Board
considered the country conditions reports, and that
substantial evidence supported the Board's determination
that the objective evidence of record alone was insufficient
to establish eligibility for CAT relief.
Manes, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals' (Board) order affirming
an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Manes argues that he was
persecuted in India because of his support for the India
National Order Lok Dal (INLD), one of the country's
opposition political parties. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Manes' petition.
Board affirmed the IJ's denial of relief on the basis of
the IJ's adverse credibility determination. "Because
credibility determinations are findings of fact by the IJ,
they 'are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.'"
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We afford a
"healthy measure of deference to agency credibility
determinations, " mindful that "IJs are in the best
position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues that
we cannot readily access [sic] on review." Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010).
the REAL ID Act, which applies here, "there is no
presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the
IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination
on 'the totality of the circumstances' and 'all
relevant factors.'" Ling Huang v. Holder,
744 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Such factors include the
alien's "demeanor, candor, or responsiveness."
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Demeanor findings
"should specifically point out the noncredible aspects
of the petitioner's demeanor." Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1042. The IJ may also consider inconsistencies
between the petitioner's statements and other evidence of
record. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). "When an
inconsistency is cited as a factor supporting an adverse
credibility determination, that inconsistency should not be a
mere trivial error such as a misspelling, and the
petitioner's explanation for the inconsistency, if any,
should be considered in ...