Gamal Moustafa Ibrahim 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GAMAL MOUSTAFA IBRAHIM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70673
Agency No. A095-697-157
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Gamal Moustafa Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Egypt, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-70673
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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Ibrahim’s inconsistent testimony regarding when he signed the online
petition that he alleges caused police to question his son. See id. at 1046-47
(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s
claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great
weight.”); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding an
adverse credibility finding where inconsistent evidence was submitted regarding a
crucial date upon which the alien predicated his claim). We reject Ibrahim’s
contention that he was not given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Ibrahim’s lack of candor regarding his
declaration reflected negatively on his credibility. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044
(under the REAL ID Act, an immigration judge may rely on any relevant factor in
assessing the “totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-70673
Ibrahim’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Ibrahim’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Egypt. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --