MOHAMED MOHAMED RAFFI V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70944 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMED HUSSAIN MOHAMED RAFFI, No. 13-70944 Agency No. A088-107-439 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Raffi, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Raffi’s testimony regarding the addresses of his business and home and the omission from his declaration that he was beaten when he was detained in 1995. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies and omission). The agency reasonably rejected Raffi’s explanations. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Raffi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Raffi’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements the agency found not credible and he does not point to any other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-70944