MARCEL OUEDRAOGO, AKA Ken Marcus, AKA Arthur Ouedera 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARCEL OUEDRAOGO, AKA Ken
Marcus, AKA Arthur Ouedera,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75034
Agency No. A098-157-333
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 3, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: CANBY, THOMPSON and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Marcel Ouedraogo (“Ouedraogo”), a native and citizen of Burkina Faso,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding
FILED
AUG 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Where, as here, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), but also provided its own review of the
evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and the BIA’s decision. Hosseini v.
Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006). We review findings of fact and
credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the numerous inconsistencies regarding the timing, circumstances and
details of Ouedraogo’s alleged arrests, persecution, and anti-government activities.
Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007). These inconsistencies go to
the heart of his claim. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on Ouedraogo’s omissions, and inconsistent testimony,
regarding the alleged custodial abuse and rape he suffered while arrested. Kin v.
Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, Ouedraogo’s failure
to provide evidence corroborating his claim supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
His international travels followed by voluntary returns to Burkina Faso also cast
doubt on the credibility of his claims of fear of persecution. In the absence of
credible testimony, Ouedraogo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We need not reach Ouedraogo’s contention that he is eligible for relief under
the CAT because he failed to exhaust that claim before the BIA. Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In any event, Ouedraogo’s CAT
claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Ouedraogo points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if he returns to Burkina Faso. Farah, 348 F.3d at
1156-57.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --