NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FETHIYA MUHABA ANBASSE, No. 20-70561
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-726-256
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Fethiya Muhaba Anbasse, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
review for abuse of discretion, Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014).
*
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).
1. Anbasse argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ) finding that her new evidence was inherently unbelievable. But the
record shows significant inconsistencies between the evidence presented at the
original hearing and the evidence supporting the motion. See Silva v. Garland, 993
F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021). We find no error.
2. Nor did the BIA err in determining that Anbasse failed to present
material evidence. At the original removal hearing, the IJ found that Anbasse failed
to testify credibly and had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a
likelihood of torture. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
any evidence of changed country conditions would be immaterial to her claims for
relief from removal. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992–97 (9th Cir.
2008).
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in taking administrative notice of
a fact that could be “accurately and readily determined from official government
sources and whose accuracy is not disputed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(iv)(A)(3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2