ADRIEN NORMIL V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73273 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADRIEN NORMIL, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73273 Agency No. A200-194-706 v. MEMORANDUM * JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Adrien Normil’s motion to remand proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied. Normil, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the BIA’s order * 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). dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Normil’s contentions as to the preparation of his asylum application and the IJ’s denial of a continuance. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination in light of the inconsistencies surrounding the single incident of physical harm that Normil allegedly suffered in Haiti. See Shrestha, 593 F.3d at 1047; Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “inconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Normil’s asylum claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 15-73273
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.
