United States v. 2020-11-03 | 19-72327 | ASONGANYI NKEMNKENG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASONGANYI F. NKEMNKENG, AKA
Asonganyi Felix Nkemnkeng,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72327

Agency No. A215-818-151

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Asonganyi F. Nkemnkeng, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions 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

*
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

NOV 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-72327
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-
40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an omission in Nkemnkeng’s credible fear interview and inconsistencies
between his testimony and visa application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Nkemnkeng’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Nkemnkeng did not present corroborative evidence that would
otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility
or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, Nkemnkeng’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Nkemnkeng’s
CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and
Nkemnkeng 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

3 19-72327
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Cameroon. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048-49.
We reject Nkemnkeng’s contention that the agency erred in its legal analysis
or ignored evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.