Jn Michely Charles v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JN MICHELY CHARLES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70549
Agency No. A209-141-719
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jn Michely Charles, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se 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”). Our
* 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).
FILED
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70549
jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding whether Charles experienced harm or feared
harm in Haiti and Brazil, as well as a misrepresentation to Mexican immigration
officials regarding his country of origin. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Charles’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Charles’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
Charles’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
that the agency found not credible, and Charles does not point to any other
evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70549
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Haiti or
Brazil. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Charles’s contentions regarding eligibility
for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and
the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act because he did not raise them to the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner
must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --