Kuforiji, et al v. Holder, No. 07-73304 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 02 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUPE KUFORIJI; et al., No. 07-73304 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A097-520-697 A097-520-698 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Dupe Kuforiji and her daughter, natives and citizens of Nigeria, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for substantial evidence the IJ s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies regarding Kuforiji s identity and marital status, and her failure to provide sufficient corroboration in the absence of credible testimony. See id., at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable [i]n the totality of circumstances ); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) ( [t]he highly deferential standard of review compels us to let stand the BIA s determination that petitioner's corroboration was insufficient. ). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-73304

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.