Mohammed Sarif Bapary v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED SARIF BAPARY,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71927
Agency No. A206-914-105
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Sarif Bapary, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing Bapary’s appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Bapary’s testimony and his supporting
documents regarding his reason for leaving Bangladesh, his knowledge of an arrest
warrant against him, and the injuries he sustained. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d
738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). The
agency was not compelled to accept Bapary’s statements about the inconsistencies.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, Bapary’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Bapary’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it
15-71927 2

-- 2 of 3 --

is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Bangladesh, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-71927 3

-- 3 of 3 --