I-S-M-

page
811
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4228
Matter of I-S-M-, Respondent
Decided June 4, 20261
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Immigration Judge properly found the respondent not credible, and ultimately
ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture, due to various inconsistencies related to the respondent’s identity.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
BEFORE: Board Panel: OWEN and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judges; WANG,
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge’s April 15, 2025,
decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal
under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A) (2024),
and the application for protection under the regulations implementing the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).2 	The Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) has not responded to the appeal.3 	The appeal will be
dismissed.
We affirm the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum based on the finding
that the respondent’s claim was not credible. 	See Rodriguez-Ramirez v.
Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (concluding
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 7079-2026, dated July 29, 2026, the Acting Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of I-S-M- (BIA June 4, 2026), as precedent in all
proceedings involving the same issue or issues. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2026).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2 	The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States Nov. 20, 1994). 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 (2026); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a) (2020).
3 	On January 28, 2026, attorney Benjamin Dunlap Cornell filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel for the respondent. The motion to withdraw as counsel is granted.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4228
page
812
inconsistencies and other factors supported an adverse credibility finding).
The 	Immigration 	Judge’s 	adverse 	credibility 	finding 	is 	supported 	by
significant inconsistencies within the respondent’s account and is not clearly
erroneous. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263–65 (9th Cir. 2017)
(per curiam) (finding that inconsistencies and adverse demeanor findings
constituted substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2026). 	Under the REAL ID Act, an adverse credibility
finding must be based on consideration of the totality of the circumstances
and all relevant factors, including the responsiveness of the respondent, the
inherent plausibility of the respondent’s account, the consistency between the
respondent’s written and oral statements, and the internal consistency of each
such statement, without regard to whether an inconsistency goes to the heart
of the respondent’s claim. 	Section 208(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 263–65 (BIA 2007)
(holding 	the 	Immigration 	Judge 	properly 	considered 	totality 	of
circumstances in finding that respondent lacked credibility based on his
demeanor, implausible testimony, lack of corroboration, and inconsistent
statements).
The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent did not establish
his identity. 	The issue of identity is threshold to any asylum claim. 	See
Matter of O-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1079, 1081 (BIA 1998) (noting an asylum
applicant 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	establishing 	identity, 	nationality, 	and
citizenship); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(describing identity as a key element of the asylum application). 	The
Immigration Judge determined that the respondent did not present credible
or reliable evidence of his identity. A review of the record indicates that the
Immigration 	Judge’s 	decision 	reflects 	that 	he 	considered 	all 	evidence
submitted in that regard. 	We agree that insufficient credible evidence was
provided to establish the respondent’s identity. 	We have held identity is
“perhaps the most critical of elements” of an asylum claim, and the
respondent’s failure to establish this element was fatal. 	Matter of O-D-,
21 I&N Dec. at 1082.
Specifically, the Immigration Judge considered that the respondent
initially testified that his name was “I.S.M.” and that he had never used any
other names. However, the respondent later stated that he had used at least
two other names. 	In addition, the respondent testified that he had claimed
multiple countries of citizenship, including Somalia, Kenya, and Finland.
The Immigration Judge also pointed out issues with the Kenyan passport the
respondent had used. As noted by the Immigration Judge, the passport was
legitimately issued by the Kenyan government; however, the passport
contained false information as it used a fake name, and the respondent is not

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4228
page
813
Kenyan. The Immigration Judge also noted significant inconsistencies as to
when the respondent received the Kenyan passport and when he used it. In
addition, the respondent testified that he is a member of the Sheekhaal clan.
However, when asked in what part of Somalia the Sheekhaal clan lives, the
respondent stated, “I didn’t know much of a clan and where they live.” The
Immigration Judge noted that this raises the question as to whether the
respondent is a member of that clan or even if he practices Sufi Islam.
Moreover, a review of the record indicates that the respondent’s passport
from Somalia shows he was born in Afmadow, instead of Bilis Qooqaani,
which is where he claims he is from. The Immigration Judge noted that the
respondent was unable to explain the inconsistency. The Immigration Judge
also considered the respondent’s counsel’s argument that the respondent is
able to verify his identity by virtue of his ability to speak the Somali
language. 	However, the Immigration Judge properly noted that the Somali
language is also spoken in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya.
We discern no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s determination that
the respondent did not credibly establish his identity. The Immigration Judge
based this determination on specific and cogent reasons, consisting of
discrepancies with the respondent’s testimony and the evidence in the record
which were not 	reasonably explained. 	We agree 	that, based 	on the
respondent’s failure to establish his identity, he has failed to meet his burden
of proof with respect to his claim for asylum and withholding of removal.
See Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998) (holding alien failed
meet burden of proof to establish asylum claim where he did not provide any
evidence to corroborate his purported identity, nationality, or claim of
persecution). 	Given the inconsistencies in the record, we agree with the
Immigration Judge that the respondent has not met his burden to establish his
identity and nationality. As such, the respondent cannot meet his burden to
demonstrate eligibility for relief and protection based on his claimed fear of
persecution and torture in Somalia.
Furthermore, the Immigration Judge noted inconsistencies between the
respondent’s testimony and the evidence in the record regarding his claim.
The respondent claims that he fears the Al-Shabaab terrorist group. 	The
respondent testified that Al-Shabaab targeted him and his friends in January
2017 because they were practitioners of Sufi Islam. When asked how these
men knew they were practitioners of Sufi Islam, he responded it was because
they were wearing green. 	However, as noted on cross-examination, the
respondent did not mention in his written statement that he or any others were
wearing green. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge noted discrepancies as
to where the respondent’s family fled after the respondent was attacked in
2017.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4228
page
814
We 	have 	considered 	the 	respondent’s 	arguments 	regarding 	the
Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding and are not persuaded by his
challenges. The Immigration Judge is not required to accept the respondent’s
explanations, even if plausible, where there are other permissible views of
the evidence based on the record. See Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 455
(BIA 2011), remanded on other grounds, Radojkovic v. Holder, 599 F.
App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2015). Considering the totality of the circumstances and
all relevant factors, there is no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s finding
that the respondent was not credible. 	See generally Malkandi v. Mukasey,
544 F.3d 1029, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2008); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. at
263–65.
Since the respondent’s testimony was not credible and no other evidence
independently establishes his burden, it follows he has failed to satisfy his
burden of proving eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. 	See
Matter of M-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 125, 129 (BIA 1995) (“A persecution claim
which lacks veracity cannot satisfy the burdens of proof and persuasion
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding relief.”); Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d at 1156.
We also agree with the Immigration Judge’s denial of the respondent’s
application for protection under the CAT. 	8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 	An
adverse credibility finding is not alone an adequate basis to deny a claim for
protection under the CAT. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282–84 (9th
Cir. 2001). However, where the only evidence supporting a claim of torture
is the respondent’s discredited testimony and general reports indicating that
torture occurs in the respondent’s native country, the country reports alone
are generally insufficient to show that the respondent is more likely than not
to be tortured. Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006);
see also Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017)
(rejecting CAT claim based on the the same statements found to be not
credible in the asylum context). The respondent has not provided sufficient
evidence in light of the adverse credibility finding to establish that it is more
likely than not that he would be tortured at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of, a public official or person acting in an official
capacity, or that such persons would be “willfully blind” to any torture
committed against him by private individuals. 	8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),
1208.18(a)(1); see also Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705–06 (9th
Cir. 2010); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2007);
Ornelas-Chavez 	v. 	Gonzales, 	458 	F.3d 	1052, 	1059 	(9th 	Cir. 	2006).
Therefore, we uphold the denial of protection under the CAT.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4228
page
815
NOTICE: 	If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by Department of Homeland Security,
or conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the
respondent’s departure pursuant to the order of removal, the respondent shall
be subject to a civil monetary penalty of up to $998 for each day the
respondent is in violation. 	See section 274D of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d
(2024); 8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2026). 	Further, any respondent that has
been denied admission to, removed from, or has departed the United States
while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding and
thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in the United States
shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 	See INA
§ 276(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2024).