Kifle v. Holder

356 F. App'x 36

Opinions

MEMORANDUM **

Erkabwa Kifle, a native Ethiopian, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (the “IJ”) decision that Kifle was ineligible for asylum relief, under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of deportation relief, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusions that the conviction document Kifle presented, purporting to be an in absentia conviction and death sentence, was fraudulent and that Kifle had failed to present evidence necessitating asylum relief, withholding of deportation relief, or protection under the CAT.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the conviction document Kifle presented was fraudulent. Specifically, the testimony and written report of William McCarthy, an immigration forensic documents examiner, are substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s decision. While Kifle presented contradictory evidence indicating the conviction document was authentic, the IJ properly discredited this evidence, and the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s decision. See Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907, 910 (9th Cir.2004).

The IJ rejected as too speculative the dissent’s view that delivery of a false document denotes a threat of harm from someone. Kifle did not appeal the issue to the BIA and it is therefore not before us. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006).

As a final note, the Court recognizes Kifle has not forfeited her right to voluntary departure, which the BIA previously granted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Footnotes

**

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