Adjetey Quarshie v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADJETEY QUARSHIE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-148
Agency No.
A208-122-574
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Adjetey Quarshie, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for review.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAY 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-148
Where, as here, “[t]he BIA conducted its own review of the evidence and
law rather than simply adopting the [IJ]’s decision[,] . . . our review ‘is limited to
the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’”
Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordon-Garcia
v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000)).
The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). In part, the
BIA determined that Quarshie’s testimony was not credible because he
previously gave inconsistent sworn statements. Specifically, Quarshie initially
told immigration officials that he had never been in jail and later explained that
he had been placed in jail for four days during which time he was beaten. The
BIA also relied on Quarshie’s admission that he lied under oath at his Master
Calendar Hearing when he told the IJ that he did not have children. Finally, the
BIA relied upon Quarshie’s failure to mention specifically in his initial
interviews, asylum application, and direct testimony an incident in which he was
whipped by members of the military.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not compel a
contrary credibility determination. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973
(9th Cir. 2011). The agency could rely on Quarshie’s inconsistent statements,
false testimony under oath, and omission when making an adverse credibility
determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010); see
also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016). And contrary

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-148
to Quarshie’s contention, the record reflects that the IJ adequately considered
Quarshie’s explanations, and the BIA correctly indicated that the IJ was not
required to accept Quarshie’s explanations. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that, in absence of
credible testimony, Quarshie failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. The independent record evidence does not
compel the conclusion that Quarshie particularly will be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of public officials if returned to Ghana. Id.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --