Foday Sillah v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-71526 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 09 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FODAY SILLAH, No. 09-71526 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-151-081 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Foday Sillah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from Sillah s asylum application and declaration of his siblings deaths, see id. at 962-64 (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and Sillah s failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omissions, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Sillah s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because Sillah failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-71526

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.