Angeline Mamah Forcha 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELINE MAMAH FORCHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70123
Agency No. A096-289-115
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Angeline Mamah Forcha, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-70123 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042
(9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Forcha is not credible
based on the inconsistency between her testimony and her asylum application
regarding whether she left the house while she was in hiding. See id. at 1043
(inconsistencies in testimony about events leading up to departure supported
adverse credibility determination). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s
finding that Forcha is not credible because her testimony regarding the location of
her April 1997 detention was inconsistent with the letter from her pastor. See Pal
v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). The IJ reasonably
rejected her explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Forcha’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Forcha’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the agency
found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

07-70123 3
than not she would be tortured if she returns to Cameroon, Forcha’s CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --