Quarshie v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 18, 2023
• Docket: 22-148
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADJETEY QUARSHIE, No. 22-148 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-122-574 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2023 Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Adjetey Quarshie, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Where, as here, “[t]he BIA conducted its own review of the evidence and

law rather than simply adopting the [IJ]’s decision[,] . . . our review ‘is limited to

the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’”

Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordon-Garcia

v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000)).

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial

evidence. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). In part, the

BIA determined that Quarshie’s testimony was not credible because he

previously gave inconsistent sworn statements. Specifically, Quarshie initially

told immigration officials that he had never been in jail and later explained that

he had been placed in jail for four days during which time he was beaten. The

BIA also relied on Quarshie’s admission that he lied under oath at his Master

Calendar Hearing when he told the IJ that he did not have children. Finally, the

BIA relied upon Quarshie’s failure to mention specifically in his initial

interviews, asylum application, and direct testimony an incident in which he was

whipped by members of the military.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not compel a

contrary credibility determination. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973

(9th Cir. 2011). The agency could rely on Quarshie’s inconsistent statements,

false testimony under oath, and omission when making an adverse credibility

determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010); see

also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016). And contrary

2 22-148 to Quarshie’s contention, the record reflects that the IJ adequately considered

Quarshie’s explanations, and the BIA correctly indicated that the IJ was not

required to accept Quarshie’s explanations. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that, in absence of

credible testimony, Quarshie failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief. See

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. The independent record evidence does not

compel the conclusion that Quarshie particularly will be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of public officials if returned to Ghana. Id.

PETITION DENIED.

3 22-148