Yayah Jalloh 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAYAH JALLOH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73871
Agency No. A078-649-115
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Yayah Jalloh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73871 2
(“CAT”), and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Jalloh’s testimony that he paid an agent to obtain his passport and identity
cards and implausibilities regarding the making of his identity documents, see
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse
credibility finding where inconsistencies went to key elements of the asylum claim,
including identity), and based on the inconsistencies between Jalloh’s testimony
and asylum application that go to the heart of his claim, see Li, 378 F.3d at 962-63.
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Jalloh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Jalloh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to Sierra Leone, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at
1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73871 3
We lack jurisdiction to review Jalloh’s voluntary departure claim because he
failed to exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --