Adrien Normil v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIEN NORMIL,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73273
Agency No. A200-194-706
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Adrien Normil’s motion to remand proceedings to the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) and to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance (Docket Entry No.
20) is denied.
Normil, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the BIA’s order
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73273
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Normil’s contentions as to the preparation
of his asylum application and the IJ’s denial of a continuance. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in
administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
in light of the inconsistencies surrounding the single incident of physical harm that
Normil allegedly suffered in Haiti. See Shrestha, 593 F.3d at 1047; Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “inconsistencies
regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support
an adverse credibility determination”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this
case, Normil’s asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --