United States v. 2020-08-12 | 19-70060 | MAHAD DINI V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAHAD ABDI DINI,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70060

Agency No. A213-077-791

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 3, 2020
**

Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,
***
Judge.

Mahad Dini, a native and citizen of Somalia, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum
and withholding of removal. Dini argues that the agency’s adverse credibility

*
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).

***
The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States
Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition.
Credibility determinations based on an applicant’s demeanor are entitled to
“special deference.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, the Immigration Judge found Dini’s
testimony not credible principally on the basis of his demeanor during cross-
examination. The Immigration Judge observed that Dini appeared “defensive,” that
he was “visibly angered by some of the questions asked of him,” and that the
volume of his voice dramatically increased in response to some questions that
appeared to offend him. Although “most witnesses are uncomfortable and nervous
when being cross-examined,” courts must defer to an Immigration Judge’s “ability
to differentiate between the usual level of anxiety and [an applicant’s] behavior.”
Id.
At least some of the additional bases for the agency’s credibility
determination find support in the record. It was not clear error, for example, for the
Immigration Judge to find suspicious that two of the purportedly Somalian
government-issued documents Dini submitted were dated erroneously to reflect the
date of Dini’s auto accident, rather than the date on which they must have been
prepared. Given the demeanor-based findings, the agency’s adverse credibility
determination was supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.