JAAFAR AL AMMARAH, AKA Jaafar Al Amarah, and SUHA SAMAD AL DIWAN v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAAFAR AL AMMARAH, AKA Jaafar Al
Amarah, and SUHA SAMAD AL DIWAN,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71707
Agency Nos. A078-411-874
A078-411-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jaafar Al Ammarah and Suha Samad Al Diwan, natives and citizens of Iraq,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71707
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies as to the timing and circumstances of Al Ammarah’s
detention, his brother’s arrest, and Al Ammarah going into hiding go to the heart of
his claim of persecution in Iraq. See id. (“inconsistencies regarding events that
form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility
determination”) (citation omitted). In the absence of credible testimony,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any evidence that
compels the finding it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Iraq. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --