Rosabelle Nguyai v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Rosabelle Nguyai v. Eric Holder, Jr.

472 F. App'x 788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2012

Docket09-71213

StatusUnpublished

This text of 472 F. App'x 788 (Rosabelle Nguyai v. Eric 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

Rosabelle Nguyai v. Eric Holder, Jr., 472 F. App'x 788 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rosabelle Wanjiru Nguyai, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immi *789 gration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion Nguyai established extraordinary circumstances excusing her late filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Nguyai’s testimony and asylum application regarding whether she went into hiding and moved around to avoid the Mungiki, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir.2000), and based on her failure to provide corroboration, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000) (“if the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Nguyai’s withholding of removal claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Nguyai’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements that the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Nguyai would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Kenya. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rosabelle Wanjiru Nguyai, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immi *789 gration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion Nguyai established extraordinary circumstances excusing her late filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Nguyai’s testimony and asylum application regarding whether she went into hiding and moved around to avoid the Mungiki, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir.2000), and based on her failure to provide corroboration, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000) (“if the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Nguyai’s withholding of removal claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Nguyai’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements that the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Nguyai would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Kenya. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F. App'x 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosabelle-nguyai-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack