Annette Dagnew v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNETTE DAGNEW,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-74037
Agency No. A201-105-218
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District
Judge.
Annette Dagnew (“Dagnew”) petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Stanley A. Bastian, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dagnew contends she is entitled to relief due to persecution on account of her
religion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) and the BIA’s
adverse credibility determinations; for example, Dagnew failed to mention the
alleged 2008 police raid and confiscation of all her identification documents in her
asylum application or credible fear interview. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting we review
“denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial
evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole”) (quotation omitted). This
omission is especially glaring since the raid is the reason given by Dagnew to
explain why she lacked any documentation to substantiate crucial aspects of her
narrative. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material
alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an
adverse credibility finding.”). In the absence of any credible testimony from
Dagnew, the IJ and BIA reasonably determined that the remaining evidence failed
to establish her eligibility for relief. We need not reach the BIA’s alternative
holding that, even if Dagnew had been found credible, the IJ reasonably required
her to provide certain corroborating evidence and that her failure to do so likewise

-- 2 of 3 --

3
resulted in a failure to meet her burden of proof.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --