United States v. 2020-04-06 | 17-73374 | LAURA BISONG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAURA N. BISONG,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73374
Agency No. A209-869-733
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2020
**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Laura Ndia Bisong seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") final order affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of her
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition.
FILED
APR 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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).

1. Before the BIA, Petitioner did not challenge the IJ’s denial of her claims
for withholding of removal and CAT relief. The BIA, therefore, did not address
those issues. Because Petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies for
those claims, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard). Petitioner testified
inconsistently about whether she "took" the photographs of the demonstrations or,
instead, merely received them from friends. That is not a minor or collateral detail.
Petitioner’s asylum claim is predicated on her allegation that she was assaulted by
police because she took pictures of police misconduct on her cell phone. She
testified that the police officers admitted to punishing her for "taking these
pictures." And, in her I-589 asylum application, Petitioner stated that her taking
pictures of French-speaking police "raping girls, beating people in the street, and
burning people’s houses" was the reason why the police beat, raped, and arrested
her. Taking a photograph suggests a closer nexus between Petitioner and the
demonstrations and, correspondingly, a greater risk of persecution. Because this
2

inconsistency was probative of Petitioner’s veracity about "events central to [her]
version of why [she] was persecuted," substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination, which the BIA affirmed. See Singh v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Maldonado v.
Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc); see also Shrestha, 590 F.3d 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.").
Moreover, Petitioner had notice and an opportunity to explain the
inconsistency. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1092 n.14 (9th Cir. 2011)
(noting that the agency must advise a petitioner that her credibility is questionable
and give her an opportunity to explain before relying on an inconsistency to
support an adverse credibility determination). But Petitioner’s only response, both
at her hearing before the IJ and here, has been to deny that she testified that she
took the pictures herself. The BIA properly considered Petitioner’s explanation
before making its decision. Petitioner’s explanation does not compel a contrary
finding. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
We must uphold an adverse credibility determination "so long as even one
basis is supported by substantial evidence." Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088
3

(9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner failed to establish that "any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled" to disagree with the adverse credibility determination
premised on Petitioner’s inconsistency regarding how she obtained the
photographs. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Petition DENIED.
4