NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EISSA AL HAJJAJE, No. 20-71498
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-627-423
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 13, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Eissa Al Hajjaje, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
factual findings. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). “Factual
findings ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.’” Id., quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
The agency identified four bases that support the adverse credibility determination
considering the totality of the circumstances: (1) Al Hajjaje’s misrepresentations to
immigration officials, including when he attempted to enter the United States by
using a U.S. passport issued to another person; (2) Al Hajjaje’s implausible
testimony alleging that his torturers armed him with multiple weapons immediately
after torturing him; (3) his unresponsiveness to questions on numerous occasions;
and (4) his demeanor, such as when he became visibly agitated and glared at the
government’s counsel during the hearing. The record does not compel the
conclusion that the adverse credibility determination was erroneous. See Iman v.
Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Under this standard, only the most
extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility
determination.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). In the absence of credible
testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility
for asylum and withholding of removal. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009
(9th Cir. 2017).
2
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection. Al
Hajjaje’s CAT claim is based on the same underlying testimony found to be not
credible. “But when the petitioner’s ‘testimony [is] found not credible, to reverse
the BIA’s decision [denying CAT protection,] we would have to find that the reports
alone compelled the conclusion that [the petitioner] is more likely than not to be
tortured.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations
in original), quoting Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
The documentary record does not compel the conclusion that Al Hajjaje “personally
will face torture” if returned to Yemen. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 928
(9th Cir. 2020); see also Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 923 (denying CAT relief where
evidence confirmed that torture takes place in the petitioner’s home country but did
not compel the conclusion that the petitioner would face a particularized threat of
torture).
We need not reach the issue of the agency’s application of the terrorism bar
to Al Hajjaje because the other grounds for denial are dispositive.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3