Shahin Shahlapour-Anisi 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 Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for**
the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAHIN SHAHLAPOUR-ANISI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70286
Agency No. A024-733-410
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, and
MARBLEY, District Judge.**
The IJ found numerous inconsistencies in Shahlapour-Anisi’s oral testimony
that “go to the heart of [her] asylum claim,” Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109,
1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
2001)), and “provide adequate support for the IJ’s negative credibility finding,”
Kasnecovic v. Gonzalez, 400 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2005). We therefore “defer
to the IJ’s . . . findings and uphold the denial of asylum relief.” Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We also deny Shahlapour-Anisi’s application for withholding of removal
because “[a] failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish
eligibility for asylum . . . necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility
for withholding of deportation.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th
Cir. 2000).
Finally, we reject Shahlapour-Anisi’s contention that the IJ violated her due
process rights by admitting and relying on the March 5, 1987 Order to Show Cause
because there is a presumption of regularity in the delivery of documents by a
government official. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067–68 (9th Cir.
2007). Shahlapour-Anisi’s equivocal testimony that she didn’t recall whether she
was served with the Order to Show Cause fails to overcome this presumption.
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --