793 Fed.Appx. 524 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-73101, Khan v. Barr

Docket Nº:17-73101
Citation:793 Fed.Appx. 524
Party Name:Hambal KHAN, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Evangeline G. Abriel, Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the...
Judge Panel:Before: WALLACE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
Case Date:December 10, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 524

793 Fed.Appx. 524 (9th Cir. 2019)

Hambal KHAN, Petitioner,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-73101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 10, 2019

Argued and Submitted October 24, 2019 San Francisco, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Page 525

Evangeline G. Abriel, Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner

Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX6-159

Before: WALLACE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,[*] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

[**]

Hambal Khan petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

"We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and

Page 526

probative evidence on the record considered as a whole." Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the [Board’s] determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion." Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Khan argues that the denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims should be reversed because the denial rests on an adverse credibility determination that is not supported by substantial evidence. However, as long as an adverse credibility finding is based on "specific and cogent reasons," Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041-43 (9th Cir. 2010), it is "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary," Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP