Freddie Manu Geman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FREDDIE MANU GEMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72536
Agency No. A088-889-641
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Freddie Manu Geman, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72536 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Liu
v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Geman’s asylum application and declaration omitted his arrests,
interrogation, and physical abuse, and because his testimony and declaration were
inconsistent regarding which family members were taken into custody. See Kin v.
Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission of participation in
political demonstration and inconsistencies regarding circumstances of arrest and
release supported adverse credibility determination). Geman’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 1057. Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Geman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Geman’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Ghana, his CAT claim also
fails. See id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72536 3
Finally, Geman’s due process claims fail because the proceedings were not
so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case,
and because he failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding petitioner was given a
full and fair opportunity to present his case); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --