Tajuddin Ismail 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TAJUDDIN ISMAIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73308
Agency No. A096-494-189
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Tajuddin Ismail, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73308 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused Ismail’s untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, Ismail’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Ismail admitted his testimony at his asylum interview was inconsistent
with his hearing testimony concerning his participation in political rallies and the
circumstances surrounding the 1998 rally and his second arrest, see Li, 378 F.3d at
962, and the agency reasonably rejected Ismail’s explanation for the
inconsistencies, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). We
reject Ismail’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by admitting
the asylum officer’s notes in the officer’s absence. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d
308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). In the absence of credible testimony, Ismail failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Ismail’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency
found not credible, and Ismail points to no other evidence showing it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73308 3
than not he would be tortured if returned to Pakistan, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --