Manes v. Sessions, No. 14-73313 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner argued that he was persecuted in India because of his support of one of the country's opposition political parties. The panel held that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence; the IJ's demeanor findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in petitioner's documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between his statements and other evidence of record, undermined his credibility; petitioner could not satisfy his burden of proving he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal; and the Board's determination that petition was not entitled to protection under the CAT was supported by substantial evidence.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal relief on adverse credibility grounds, concluding that the IJ’s demeanor findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in the documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between petitioner’s statements and other evidence of record, undermined his credibility. The panel held that there was sufficient evidence that the Board considered the country conditions reports, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the objective evidence of record alone was insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief. MANES V. SESSIONS 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.