FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 29 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMAAL HUSEEN ALIYYI, No. 19-71826
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-815-491
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 21, 2020
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Jamaal Aliyyi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of
the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by the Board of Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Aliyyi not credible, and the BIA
concluded that the IJ’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Aliyyi’s
testimony about his passport and omissions about the harm suffered by his brothers
and father.1 See Lizhi Qiu, 944 F.3d at 842. The record supports the cited
inconsistencies and omissions. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“In the totality of circumstances it was a reasonable adverse credibility
determination, grounded in the record and based on real problems with
[petitioner’s] testimony, not mere trivialities.”). Aliyyi failed to adequately explain
the inconsistencies and omissions, and the evidence Aliyyi relies upon to support
his claim does not compel us to a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Thus, absent credible testimony, the BIA properly denied Aliyyi’s claims
for asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1
We need not address Aliyyi’s arguments regarding the other cited reasons
for the adverse credibility finding, because “[w]e must uphold an adverse
credibility determination ‘so long as even one basis is supported by substantial
evidence.’” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)).
2
1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA also properly denied Aliyyi’s claim for CAT relief,
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not
point to any other evidence in the record which would compel a conclusion that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Ethiopian
government. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3