LUTHER NCHE V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-73139 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 2 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUTHER NCHE, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-73139 Agency No. A201-436-818 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND,*** District Judge. Luther Nche, a citizen and native of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the * 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). *** The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review adverse credibility findings under the substantial evidence standard. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this standard, we may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the petitioner presents evidence that is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that he was not credible.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the REAL ID Act, “[i]nconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, “even minor inconsistencies . . . may, when considered collectively, deprive [the] claim of the requisite ring of truth, thereby supplying substantial evidence that will sustain the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence supports the denial of relief on adverse credibility grounds due to inconsistencies in the record. The IJ found, and the BIA affirmed, that there were multiple non-trivial inconsistencies between Nche’s testimony and 2 documentary evidence. Specifically, the IJ identified conflicts between Nche’s testimony and the medical record concerning the injuries he sustained from a beating following the September 24, 2018, meeting, and whether the police, military, or a mixed force had attacked him. Taken together, these inconsistencies support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID Act, and thus, we are not “compelled to conclude” that the IJ’s credibility determination was erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because the IJ’s credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and because the record does not contain sufficient independent, objective evidence to establish Nche is entitled to protection under CAT, the denial of Nche’s applications for relief was proper. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156–57; Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. Nche’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED as moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate. PETITION DENIED. 3
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.
