Alhaji Tunkara v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Alhaji Tunkara v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

397 F. App'x 421

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 2010

Docket08-72554

StatusUnpublished

This text of 397 F. App'x 421 (Alhaji Tunkara v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alhaji Tunkara v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 397 F. App'x 421 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*422 MEMORANDUM **

Alhaji Mohamed Tunkara petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We review the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse credibility findings and determinations of asylum eligibility for substantial evidence. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 588 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition.

The record evidence would not compel a reasonable finder of fact to overturn the adverse credibility findings here. Tunkara inconsistently described the rebels’ motivation for their attacks on his family, an issue that went to the heart of his asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b)(1) (stating that a petitioner must establish that he suffered past persecution “on account of’ a protected ground). We therefore defer to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because he established a “legitimate, articulable basis” for questioning Tunkara’s credibility that went to the heart of his claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Moreover, substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA’s alternative findings that even if Tunkara had been credible, he failed to establish persecution on a protected ground. Tunkara’s testimony would have established that his family was not politically active, and he failed to point to any actions demonstrating that the rebels imputed a political opinion to him. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 659 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s further conclusion that country conditions in Sierra Leone had changed so that Tunkara no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286.

We decline to address Tunkara’s arguments concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief, which he failed to raise before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*422 MEMORANDUM **

Alhaji Mohamed Tunkara petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We review the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse credibility findings and determinations of asylum eligibility for substantial evidence. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 588 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition.

The record evidence would not compel a reasonable finder of fact to overturn the adverse credibility findings here. Tunkara inconsistently described the rebels’ motivation for their attacks on his family, an issue that went to the heart of his asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b)(1) (stating that a petitioner must establish that he suffered past persecution “on account of’ a protected ground). We therefore defer to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because he established a “legitimate, articulable basis” for questioning Tunkara’s credibility that went to the heart of his claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Moreover, substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA’s alternative findings that even if Tunkara had been credible, he failed to establish persecution on a protected ground. Tunkara’s testimony would have established that his family was not politically active, and he failed to point to any actions demonstrating that the rebels imputed a political opinion to him. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 659 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s further conclusion that country conditions in Sierra Leone had changed so that Tunkara no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286.

We decline to address Tunkara’s arguments concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief, which he failed to raise before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 F. App'x 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alhaji-tunkara-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack