Mikiyas Altaye Kebede v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKIYAS ALTAYE KEBEDE,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71769
Agency No. A205-169-440
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mikiyas Altaye Kebede, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, 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”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71769
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 review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on omissions from Kebede’s asylum application and declaration as to his
alleged 2005 and 2011 detention and beating by government authorities, and as to
his sister’s detention and torture. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also
Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (omissions that tell a
“much different – and more compelling – story of persecution than [the] initial
application” can properly form the basis for an adverse credibility finding (quoting
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011))). Kebede’s explanations
do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2000). In this case, in the absence of credible testimony, Kebede’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71769
Kebede’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Kebede does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Ethiopia. See
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject as unsupported by the record Kebede’s contentions that
the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --