FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 12 2021
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JAMAAL HUSEEN ALIYYI, No. 19-71826
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-815-491
v.
ORDER
JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The prior memorandum disposition filed on October 29, 2020, is hereby
amended concurrent with the filing of the amended disposition today.
With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel
rehearing. Judge Nelson has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and
Judge Hawkins and Judge N.R. Smith have so recommended.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.
P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for
rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed in response to the amended
disposition.
2
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 12 2021
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.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting 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 (1) inconsistencies in
Aliyyi’s testimony and the evasiveness of his responses with regard to his birth
certificate, national identity card, and passport and (2) omissions about the harm
suffered by his brothers and father. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th
Cir. 2019). The record supports the cited inconsistencies, evasiveness, 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,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA also properly denied Aliyyi’s claim for CAT relief,
2
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