FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVLIN VICTOR MICHAEL, No. 21-70103 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-615-661 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: LEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Kelvin Victor Michael (“Michael”), a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing his * 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying 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 for review. We review questions of law de novo, Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010), and review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the substantial evidence standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless any reasonable trier of fact “‘would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)). In assessing an adverse credibility finding, this court must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). 1. The agency’s adverse credibility finding relied on three factors: (1) Michael’s delay in submitting his fear of discrimination based on his sexual orientation; (2) Michael’s internal inconsistency in his testimony and inconsistency between previous interviews; and (3) Michael’s responsiveness and candor. It also -2- noted that his corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his application. Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2020). The agency did not err in relying on Michael’s delay in submitting his fear of discrimination based on his sexual orientation. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that discrepancy between petitioner’s initial statements—that he came to United States for financial reasons and was not mistreated by foreign government—and later testimony asserting fear of persecution provided a valid basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination). Nor did the agency err in rejecting Michael’s explanation for his failure to disclose his fear of discrimination based on his sexual orientation.1 The agency reasonably rejected …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals