NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FETHIYA MUHABA ANBASSE, No. 20-70561 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-726-256 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Fethiya Muhaba Anbasse, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review for abuse of discretion, Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014). * 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). 1. Anbasse argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding that her new evidence was inherently unbelievable. But the record shows significant inconsistencies between the evidence presented at the original hearing and the evidence supporting the motion. See Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021). We find no error. 2. Nor did the BIA err in determining that Anbasse failed to present material evidence. At the original removal hearing, the IJ found that Anbasse failed to testify credibly and had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a likelihood of torture. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that any evidence of changed country conditions would be immaterial to her claims for relief from removal. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992–97 (9th Cir. 2008). 3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in taking administrative notice of a fact that could be “accurately and readily determined from official government sources and whose accuracy is not disputed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(iv)(A)(3). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 20-70561 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Fethiya Anbasse v. Merrick Garland 14 June 2021 Agency Unpublished ae75efd071e10c5aaacd0088fc77fe87b690dc25
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals