FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMMAD ASIF SHERA and No. 13-70877
ANALYN RAMOS SHERA,
Agency Nos. A089-719-904
Petitioners, A078-113-403
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The Immigration Judge found Muhammad Asif Shera’s testimony in
support of his application for asylum and withholding of removal not credible.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld that finding, and substantial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page 2 of 3
evidence supports the BIA’s determination. The BIA permissibly relied on the fact
that Shera said he fled Pakistan because he was being persecuted by members of a
political group, the Muttahida Quami Mahaz (MQM-A), but then returned to
Pakistan on at least four occasions. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18
(9th Cir. 2008). The BIA also permissibly found that a police report Shera
submitted as evidence of alleged persecution in fact undermined his claim that,
during one of these trips, MQM-A members with guns attacked him on the street.
See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007). Shera did not present
evidence from family members to corroborate his testimony, despite the fact that
they lived nearby and thus were presumably available to testify. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Without credible testimony, Shera has failed to establish that
he is eligible for asylum or withholding. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332,
1337–38 (9th Cir. 2013). We therefore need not address the other grounds upon
which the BIA denied relief.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Shera is
not eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In light of the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination, Shera failed to show that any past
persecution he may have suffered rose to the level of torture or that such conduct
was perpetrated by or with the acquiescence of the Pakistani government. See
Page 3 of 3
Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007); Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332
F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Shera’s motion to
remand. Although Shera alleged that his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance
resulted in the denial of his application, he did not comply with the procedural
requirements for bringing that claim. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637,
639 (BIA 1988). Nor was prior counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness plain on the face
of the record. See Castillo-Perez v. I.N.S., 212 F.3d 518, 525–26 (9th Cir. 2000).
In addition, the BIA properly determined that any changes in country conditions
did not warrant remand, as they did not relate to Shera’s claim that he would be
persecuted by the MQM-A or establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.