Faroog Raza v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAROOG RAZA, No. 18-71420 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-939-913 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 17, 2019** Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Faroog Raza, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance and motion to remand. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (motion to continue); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (motion to remand). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. There were multiple inconsistencies between Raza’s testimony, his credible fear interview, asylum declaration, and documentary evidence as to the attacks he suffered in Pakistan, the identity of his attackers, whether he reported the attacks to the police, his employment history, and his family’s location. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Raza also offered vague testimony on material and 2 18-71420 significant events. Id. Raza’s explanations do not “compel[] the opposite result,” Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000), and we lack jurisdiction to consider the explanations Raza did not raise to the agency, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we uphold the IJ’s determination that Raza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Raza’s CAT claim was properly denied because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Raza does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of government if returned to Pakistan. See id. at 1156–57. The IJ did not abuse her ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals