JAAFAR AL AMMARAH V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71707 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAAFAR AL AMMARAH, AKA Jaafar Al Amarah, and SUHA SAMAD AL DIWAN, No. 14-71707 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A078-411-874 A078-411-876 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jaafar Al Ammarah and Suha Samad Al Diwan, natives and citizens of Iraq, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistencies as to the timing and circumstances of Al Ammarah’s detention, his brother’s arrest, and Al Ammarah going into hiding go to the heart of his claim of persecution in Iraq. See id. (“inconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination”) (citation omitted). 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). Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Iraq. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71707
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.
