NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2410
___________
RICHMOND OZOBIA EJIOFOR,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A76-155-383)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Eugene Pugliese
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 23, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and WEIS, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: September 28, 2010
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Richmond Ozobia Ejiofor, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the
United States in 1999. He conceded the subsequent charge of removability under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
1
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) made an
adverse credibility determination and denied Ejiofor’s applications for relief from
removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Ejiofor
presents a petition for review.
We have jurisdiction over Ejiofor’s petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review factual findings, like an adverse credibility determination, for substantial
evidence. See Butt v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 430, 433 (3d Cir. 2005). We evaluate whether
a credibility determination was “appropriately based on inconsistent statements,
contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony . . . in view of the
background evidence of country conditions.” Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 223 (3d
Cir. 2004). We afford an adverse credibility finding substantial deference, so long as the
finding is supported by sufficient, cogent reasons. See Butt, 429 F.3d at 434. Because
the adverse credibility determination in this case was supported by sufficient, cogent
reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
First, there is a significant inconsistency between the reason that Ejiofor
gave during his airport interview for seeking asylum and the claims he subsequently
presented. We recognize that we have cautioned against putting too much weight on the
airport interview; however, discrepancies between an airport interview and a petitioner’s
testimony that go to the heart of the claim may support an adverse credibility
determination. See, e.g., Chen, 376 F.3d at 223-24. In this case, Ejiofor, who stated at
2
the airport that he had entered the United States to attend a cultural extravaganza, initially
said that he feared returning to Nigeria because he had disgraced his country by entering
the United States with a visa that was not genuine. R. 196-99. At his credible fear
interview, in his asylum application, and at his hearing, Ejiofor’s asserted basis for his
fear was markedly different, as it was based on alleged past arrests and mistreatment for
activities as a member of the Niger Delta Forum.
Furthermore, there were inconsistencies between Ejiofor’s accounts of
mistreatment. For instance, at his hearing, he detailed an arrest and described the
resulting harrowing month-long detention in 1999 as the “most devastating experience . . .
in [his] life.” R. 101. He also included an account of the experience in his asylum
application. R. 218. However, he did not mention the incident in the account he gave
during his credible fear interview. R. 181-87. At his hearing, Ejiofor did not provide a
reason why he did not mention it. R. 125. Another inconsistency was Ejiofor’s varying
report of the date on which he last saw his wife. He testified that she went missing or was
kidnapped by government agents on a Saturday in July 1999, R. 105-06, but stated at his
credible fear interview that she was abducted on June 26, 1999, R. 186.
Given the inconsistencies, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary
to the one reached by the agency. We have considered Ejiofor’s other arguments, and to
the extent that they are exhausted so that we may consider them, see Bonhometre v.
Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir. 2005), we conclude that they are without merit.
3
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.
4