Walid Majdub v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALID MAJDUB,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71437
Agency No. A078-072-869
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 16, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT,***
District Judge.
FILED
OCT 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Walid Majdub, a citizen of Israel, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
The BIA found that Majdub’s asylum claim was untimely. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion. Majdub arrived in the United States in
September 1993, but did not file his asylum application until May 2002. While the
one-year filing deadline may be excused if the applicant files within a reasonable
period after changed circumstances materially affect his eligibility for asylum, the
record supports the BIA’s finding that this exception does not apply. 8 U.S.C
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i)–(ii).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The IJ established a legitimate, articulable basis to question Majdub’s credibility
and offered specific, cogent reasons for her disbelief. Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062,
1067 (9th Cir. 2000). Majdub gave inconsistent testimony regarding the date of the
first Intifada, his affiliations with political organizations, and the extent of his
participation in political activities in both Israel and in the United States. Because
Majdub’s withholding application is premised on his claim to fear political
persecution if he is returned to Israel, these inconsistencies are not minor but “go to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

the heart” of his application. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004).
Majdub argues that any discrepancies are the result of incorrect translations, but
this explanation is implausible given the breadth of the conflicting testimony
identified by the IJ. In the absence of credible testimony, Majdub failed to
demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal.
Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s alternative conclusion
that Majdub’s testimony, even if credited, would not establish eligibility for
withholding. Majdub testified to prejudicial treatment and harassment, but the
conduct he describes does not rise to the level of persecution. Prasad v. INS, 47
F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th Cir. 1995)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --