Maisari v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Maisari v. Gonzales

144 F. App'x 689

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72906

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 689 (Maisari v. Gonzales) 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

Maisari v. Gonzales, 144 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Nabil Maisari, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Maisari’s testimony regarding his detention and his co-worker was inconsistent, lacked specificity, and went to the heart of his asylum claim. See id. at 1043; see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, he is not eligible for asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Maisari failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.

Although both parties make contentions regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), our review reveals the agency did not address any claim for relief under CAT. Therefore, we decline to address these contentions. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

MEMORANDUM

**

Nabil Maisari, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Maisari’s testimony regarding his detention and his co-worker was inconsistent, lacked specificity, and went to the heart of his asylum claim. See id. at 1043; see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, he is not eligible for asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Maisari failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.

Although both parties make contentions regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), our review reveals the agency did not address any claim for relief under CAT. Therefore, we decline to address these contentions. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maisari-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack