Reena Raut v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REENA RAUT,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71430
Agency No. A089-673-165
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
1. Petitioner Reena Raut argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) improperly relied on the asylum officer’s
notes in their adverse credibility determinations. The officer took detailed notes
FILED
DEC 16 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
and testified about the procedures he used to ensure that Raut understood his
questions and that he accurately recorded the interview. The BIA reasonably
concluded that the officer “was a reliable impeachment source.” Li v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004). Raut made inconsistent statements about her
persecution. Her varied explanations were not persuasive. Thus, the agency’s
adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.
2. A petitioner must satisfy the Lozada elements to make an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1089–90 (9th
Cir. 2010); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Strict compliance
with Lozada is not required when counsel’s ineffectiveness is plain on the face of
the record. Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1090. Raut argues that her counsel erred by not
laying a foundation for her supporting documents. But Raut’s counsel did ask
some foundational questions, and all documents were admitted for the IJ’s
consideration. Thus, there was no plain error warranting a waiver of Lozada’s
procedural requirements.
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --