United States v. 2020-06-04 | 19-72161 | SIMPLISE ALUMA NANJEH V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIMPLISE ALUMA NANJEH,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72161

Agency No. A215-681-243

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Simplise Aluma Nanjeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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 4 2020

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

2 19-72161
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 inconsistencies between Nanjeh’s testimony and documentary evidence
as to his father’s death, as well as his implausible testimony and asylum
application statement as to his seven-day detention. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Nanjeh’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Nanjeh does not challenge the agency’s finding that his
evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Nanjeh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Nanjeh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Nanjeh does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Cameroon. See id. at 1156-57; see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051

3 19-72161
(9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “petitioner must demonstrate that he would be
subject to a ‘particularized threat of torture’” to obtain CAT relief) (citation
omitted).
Nanjeh does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he failed to establish a due
process violation. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
Nanjeh’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.