Mohamed Ibrahim Abdi v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED IBRAHIM ABDI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71115
Agency No. A089-853-110
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Mohamed Ibrahim Abdi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the BIA cited its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec.1
872 (BIA 1994), and also provided its own review of the evidence and the law, we
review the decision of both the IJ and the BIA. Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235,
1239–40 (9th Cir. 2010).
-2-
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the petitioner was
involved with the persecution or assisted in the persecution of others on account of
their perceived political opinion, and therefore ineligible for asylum and
withholding of removal under the persecutor bar. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).1
The IJ found that two witnesses provided detailed and credible testimony
regarding their alleged abuse at the hands of the petitioner. The IJ found that the
petitioner failed to credibly rebut the allegations. The BIA determined that this
finding was not clearly erroneous.
Petitioner argues that the testimony of the adverse witnesses was
inconsistent and rebutted. However, we only assess whether the agency
determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). The fact-finder may consider the totality of
circumstances, and all relevant factors, including demeanor, candor,
responsiveness, plausibility, consistency, and accuracy. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although the record contains inconsistencies on the part of

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
witnesses, including the petitioner, we conclude under our deferential standard of
review that the agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioner also argues that even if he is ineligible for asylum and withholding
of removal under the persecutor bar, he is still eligible for deferral of removal
under CAT. The agency found that it is not “more likely than not” that Abdi will
be tortured if he is removed to Ethiopia, and the record does not compel the
contrary conclusion.
We need not and do not reach any other issue urged by the parties on appeal.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --