Martins Eyire Imaku v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the***
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTINS EYIRE IMAKU; AMINA
IMAKU; MARY ENEYOKHE IMAKU;
CHRISTOPHER EDERIAGBAH
IMAKU; AZEMOBHO AUGUSTA
IMAKU; ILOUBHE AFEMIKHE
IMAKU; OMONEGHO AUGUSTA
IMAKU,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75455
Agency Nos. A097-354-781
A097-354-782
A097-354-783
A097-354-784
A078-112-947
A078-112-948
A078-112-949
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District***
Judge.
FILED
FEB 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Amina, Christopher, and Mary were all found by the IJ and the BIA to be1
ineligible for asylum based on their untimely applications. He also denied them
withholding of removal and CAT relief on the grounds that their claims were not
credible. These determinations are not challenged by petitioners in this petition for
review. Accordingly, only Martins’s application and the derivative applications of
his three minor children are at issue here.
2
Martins Imaku, his wife, Amina, their minor children Azemobho, Iloubhe,
and Omonegho, and Martins’ adult children, Christopher and Mary, petition this
Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of their case.1
The BIA affirmed an adverse credibility determination of the immigration judge
and affirmed the IJ’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Martins Imaku argues
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial
evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the
petition.
We review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s when the BIA adopts and
affirms the IJ’s decision by citing to Matter of Burbano, 20 I & N Dec. 872 (BIA
1994), as it did here. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.
2007). An adverse credibility determination will stand unless “any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Malkandi v. Holder,
576 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The IJ found that Martins Imaku was not credible because, among other
things, one of the principal instances of alleged persecution to which he testified
was omitted entirely from his asylum application. The episode was an alleged
arrest, detention, and multiple beatings he suffered at the hands of the Nigerian
government. Imaku’s declaration in support of his asylum application was thirteen
pages, single-spaced, and was prepared with the assistance of counsel. The IJ
provided Imaku with an opportunity to explain the omission of the incident from
his declaration and Imaku testified that it did not come to mind at the time he wrote
the declaration. The IJ found this explanation implausible in light of Imaku’s
statements that this was the only time he was ever arrested and that during the
detention he was severely beaten with horsewhips and batons. This discrepancy
goes to the heart of his claims and adequately supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding. See Husyev v. Mukaskey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008). The
adverse credibility finding also supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --