NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ABU ZAFAR HOWLADER, No. 11-70086
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-877-521
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Abu Howlader petitions this Court for review of the BIA’s denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. This
Court reviews the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection
for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
2013). Likewise, we review adverse credibility determinations for substantial
evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
was not credible. Because this is a pre-REAL ID Act case, inconsistencies offered
to support an adverse credibility determination must “go[] to the heart of an asylum
claim.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA
identified several inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony about his alleged
hospitalization following an attack. Specifically, the BIA observed inconsistencies
in Petitioner’s description of the location of the hospital to which he was taken and
the duration of his hospital stay. These inconsistencies concern events central to
his claim of persecution and therefore go to the heart of his claim. See id. at 1091.
Moreover, the BIA determined—and Petitioner does not contest on appeal—that
the medical record Petitioner submitted to corroborate his claimed hospitalization
was fraudulent. When viewed together with the fraudulent medical record, the
inconsistencies in Petitioner’s statements constitute substantial evidence to support
the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum. Id.; see also
Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that “the
2
use of a fraudulent document may, considering the totality of the record, lend
support to an adverse credibility finding”).
Because we conclude that the BIA’s denial of asylum was supported by
substantial evidence, we also affirm the denial of withholding. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s CAT claim arises from
the same evidence that the BIA deemed not credible. Accordingly, we conclude
that the BIA’s denial of CAT protection is also supported by substantial evidence.
Id. at 1157.
Petition DENIED.
3