Vuvu v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 25-5620
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL MBADILA VUVU; ALICE No. 25-5620 NSIMBA MANZAMBI; D. M. M.; I. M. Agency Nos. M.; E. M. M., A246-562-747 A246-562-748 Petitioners, A246-562-749 A246-562-750 v. A246-562-751 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 19, 2026** Seattle, Washington

Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner Daniel Mbadila Vuvu (“Vuvu”), an Angolan national, petitions for

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We

have jurisdiction to review the petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We

deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. Under the REAL ID Act, credibility determinations are based on

the “totality of the circumstances,” and may rely on inconsistencies without regard

to whether they go to the “heart of the . . . claim.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133,

1135–36 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Here,

the IJ identified multiple inconsistencies, including (1) conflicting statements

regarding Vuvu’s place of birth, (2) discrepancies in his account of an alleged

beating—such as whether his assailants were police or military, and the type of

vehicle involved—and (3) shifting testimony regarding the duration of his

involvement in his political party. Indeed, Vuvu admitted that he provided false

information about his place of birth. And the IJ reasonably rejected his

explanations for these discrepancies. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th

Cir. 2021) (emphasizing that IJs are not required to accept petitioners’ explanations

for discrepancies in the record).

2 25-5620 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Vuvu failed

to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof. The IJ

reasonably afforded limited weight to letters from interested witnesses not subject

to cross-examination and found that documentary evidence did not independently

establish his claims.

Because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, we uphold the

adverse credibility determination.

2. Vuvu’s due process challenge based on interpretation deficiencies also

fails. “The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in deportation proceedings.”

Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th. Cir. 2000). To establish a due process

violation, a petitioner must demonstrate that “(1) the proceeding was so

fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his

case . . . and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of

the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Ibarra-Flores v.

Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 614, 620–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). The record does reflect some interpretation difficulties. Yet the

IJ addressed those issues through repetition and clarification. The proceedings do

not reflect a breakdown in communication preventing Vuvu from presenting his

claims.

3 25-5620 Nor has Vuvu demonstrated prejudice. He does not explain how improved

interpretation would have altered the inconsistencies underlying the adverse

credibility determination or otherwise shown how “a better translation would have

made any difference in the hearing’s outcome.” Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139,

1144 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022, 1033 (9th Cir. 2019)

(holding that where a petitioner cannot articulate how alleged interpretation issues

“affected his testimony” or the fairness of his hearing, no due process violation

exists).

3. The agency did not err in concluding that Vuvu filed a frivolous asylum

application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). An asylum application is frivolous if a

material element is deliberately fabricated, provided that the agency satisfies the

required procedural safeguards. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20; Fernandes v. Holder, 619

F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010).

The IJ correctly found that Vuvu knowingly provided false information

regarding his place of birth. Vuvu admitted this during the proceedings. The

agency reasonably concluded that this misrepresentation was material, as an

applicant’s identity and nationality—both of which may be informed by

birthplace—are central to asylum eligibility and may affect lines of inquiry

relevant to relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

(noting that identity is a “key” element of an asylum application).

4 25-5620 Further, the record reflects that the agency complied with the required

procedural safeguards. Fernandes, 619 F.3d at 1076. First, Vuvu received notice

of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application, including through the

warnings accompanying his applications and warnings provided during the

proceedings. See Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding

that a written warning on an asylum application “adequately notifies the applicant

of [] the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum”).

Second, the IJ made an explicit finding that Vuvu knowingly and deliberately

fabricated a material element of his application and explained the reasons for that

finding in detail. Third, the finding was supported by a preponderance of the

evidence, including through Vuvu’s overt admission that he knowingly provided

false information about his birthplace. Fourth, the IJ afforded Vuvu an adequate

opportunity to explain the discrepancy. Accordingly, the frivolousness

determination was proper.

PETITION DENIED.

5 25-5620