NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAR 01 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WALI KHAN, No. 14-70995
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-127-370
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 17, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,**
District Judge.
Wali Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
(“IJ”) denial of Khan’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We
deny the petition.
On December 1, 2006, Khan was admitted to the United States as a seaman
on a thirty-day work visa. He later applied for asylum and withholding of removal.
On March 13, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to
Appear, charging Khan with removal for having overstayed his visa.
Before an IJ, Khan conceded removability, but renewed his applications for
asylum and withholding of removal, and applied for relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Khan testified that he had been persecuted for his
political and religious beliefs in Pakistan. He claimed that in August 2005 and
September 2006, police arrested, detained, and tortured him for organizing on
behalf of an opposition political party. He also testified that in October 2006, a
religious extremist group threatened him at his shop and later abducted and
tortured him because he refused to close the shop during prayer times.
The IJ found Khan was not credible and denied his applications on that
basis. The adverse credibility determination primarily rested on several
unexplained inconsistencies in Khan’s testimony, and between his testimony and
the record. First, Khan testified that he made the decision to leave Pakistan in
November 2006, but the record showed that a shipping company had applied for a
2
U.S. work visa on Khan’s behalf in May 2006, that Khan had checked the status of
that visa in August 2006, and that Khan was already employed by the shipping
company as of August 2006. Second, Khan testified that the religious extremists
abducted him two days after they first came to his shop, but his supplemental
declaration stated that the abduction occurred only one day later. Third, Khan
testified that he did not seek medical treatment after his first arrest, but his initial
declaration stated that he did seek treatment at that time. Fourth, Khan testified
that a member of his political party won a seat in the 2002 elections, but his first
declaration stated that the individual had lost in 2002. The IJ also found that Khan
had failed to corroborate his testimony that he owned a shop in Pakistan, even
though the shop was “the source of his problems with [the extremist group] and the
source of his second arrest.” The IJ ordered Khan removed.
Khan appealed and the BIA affirmed in part and remanded in part. It
concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not erroneous, and
affirmed the IJ’s denial of Khan’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal.
The BIA remanded for reconsideration of Khan’s CAT application and
eligibility for voluntary departure, because the IJ had failed to analyze the country
conditions information in the record and explain her reasons for concluding that
3
Khan was not eligible for voluntary departure. On remand, however, Khan
withdrew his CAT application and informed the IJ that he would not accept a grant
of voluntary departure. Accordingly, the IJ issued another order of removal, and
Khan petitioned this court for review.1
Before this court, Khan argues that the adverse credibility finding was
unsupported by any of the inconsistencies relied upon by the BIA. “The BIA’s
credibility findings are reviewed under the . . . substantial evidence standard.”
Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “[W]e must uphold the
[agency’s] adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported
by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003)). At minimum, the
agency’s decision was supported by the May 2006 application for a visa by the
shipping company and Khan’s inability to explain why that application preceded
much of the alleged persecution.
1
This court has jurisdiction over this petition for review because the
order of removal is final and no new issues arose on remand. See, e.g., Shepherd v.
Holder, 678 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that an alien was not
required to take a second, “redundant” appeal to the BIA because her “petition
meets the finality requirement by virtue of passage of time and meets the
exhaustion requirement because a second appeal to the BIA would essentially be a
motion for reconsideration of an issue the BIA already had decided”).
4
Khan argues that the IJ did not address Khan’s explanation for that
inconsistency. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)
(requiring IJs to consider a “petitioner’s explanation for a perceived
inconsistency”). On the contrary, Khan never gave an adequate explanation. The
IJ asked: “Well sir, you clearly stated that you contacted the agent in November of
2006, because you wanted to leave Pakistan. But the application was made in
May. Are you going to explain this?” Khan responded: “No, Your Honor.” The
closest Khan came to an explanation was his statement that, although he applied
for a visa in May 2006, he did not have a job offer at that time and contacted an
agent in November for help securing a position with a shipping company. But this
explanation is inadequate, for it only addresses why he contacted an agent, and
fails to address the root of the inconsistency about when and why he decided to
leave the country. Moreover, as the IJ noted, the explanation is implausible in light
of a letter from the shipping company showing that Khan had secured a position by
August 2006.
Khan did not give a full explanation for this inconsistency, and the IJ stated
her reason for rejecting his partial explanation. The inconsistency therefore
supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The petition for review is
DENIED.
5