NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SORYBA CISSE, No. 20-71333
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-828-204
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Soryba Cisse petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s “legal conclusions
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v.
Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The IJ found material, non-trivial omissions and inconsistencies
between Cisse’s credible fear interview with an asylum officer and his hearing
testimony, and between his documentary evidence and his hearing testimony. See
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011).
Although Cisse alleged persecution on account of his religion, he did not
mention religion in the prehearing interview or in the detailed written statement
supporting his asylum application. Cisse did not simply fail to disclose details of
the alleged persecution, he affirmatively denied threats or harm on account of his
religion. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004), superseded by
statute on other grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(b)(iii).
The agency did not improperly rely on inconsistencies and omissions
between Cisse’s prehearing interview and his hearing testimony. Unlike Joseph v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2010), “procedural safeguards” were in
place to “ensure reliability,” including the administration of an oath at the outset of
the interview, the presence of a translator, and the existence of a written record of
the questions and answers. At the conclusion of the interview, Cisse agreed with
2
the asylum officer’s summary of his testimony and confirmed that he understood
the questions and the interpreter. See Li, 378 F.3d at 962-63 (upholding adverse
credibility determination based on discrepancies between petitioner’s statements in
airport interview and subsequent testimony); see also Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I. &
N. Dec. 211, 213 (B.I.A. 2018). The IJ found Cisse’s sworn statement to the
asylum officer reliable and he did not contest that issue on appeal to the BIA.
The agency also did not err in concluding that documentary evidence did not
rehabilitate Cisse’s testimony or independently meet his burden of proof. In the
absence of credible testimony or other evidence to meet his burden, Cisse’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009
(9th Cir. 2017).
2. Cisse does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s affirmance of the
denial of CAT protection. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Additionally, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cisse failed to show
that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Guinea. See Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding generalized
evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to
meet the standard for CAT relief).
3. Cisse’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights also fails. To
3
demonstrate that an IJ committed a due process violation, a petitioner must show
that “the underlying IJ proceeding was ‘so fundamentally unfair that the alien was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case.’” Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693
(9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Cisse argues that the IJ expressed frustration
during the proceedings. But “a mere showing that the IJ was unfriendly,
confrontational, or acted in an adversarial manner is not enough to” show that a
proceeding was fundamentally unfair. Id. (citations omitted).
5. We deny as moot the motion for stay of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
4