KAFI YASIN-YUSEF, AKA Badale, AKA Keyse Mohamed Bedel v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAFI YASIN-YUSEF, AKA Badale, AKA
Keyse Mohamed Bedel,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70704
Agency No. A209-164-448
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kafi Yasin-Yusef, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70704
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Yasin-Yusef’s implausible testimony regarding his Hungarian travel
documents and inconsistences between his testimony and documentary evidence as
to whether he had ever traveled to Hungary. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Wang v.
Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir. 2017) (IJ may consider all relevant factors,
including “the inherent plausibility” of the petitioner’s account) (citation omitted)).
Yasin-Yusef’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony,
in this case, Yasin-Yusef’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Yasin-Yusef’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence
the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding
that it is more likely than not that Yasin-Yusef would be tortured if returned to
Somalia. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject as moot Yasin-Yusef’s request for a custody redetermination

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70704
hearing. Yasin-Yusef’s requests for a stay of removal and appointment of counsel
were addressed in the court’s July 19, 2018 order (Docket Entry No. 11).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --