Musa Tunkara 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MUSA TUNKARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72368
Agency No. A095-405-813
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2012**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Musa Tunkara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, seeks review
of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Tunkara’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding
FILED
DEC 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we1
do not recount the facts here.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (codified in2
scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.), changed the standard governing credibility
determinations, stating that inconsistencies may be considered regardless of
whether they go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). However, because Tunkara applied for asylum in 2002, the
REAL ID Act does not apply. See REAL ID Act § 101(h)(2); Joseph v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1235, 1240 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
from removal on the basis of adverse credibility. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts1
the IJ's decision while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both
decisions.” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We
review legal questions de novo and review factual findings, including credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence, treating them as “conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding. The IJ identified many inconsistencies in Tunkara’s testimony
and his application for asylum that were supported by substantial evidence and
went to the heart of Tunkara’s claim. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 10912
(9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for
rejecting Tunkara’s explanations for the discrepancies. See Zamanov v. Holder,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We are unable to conclude that the record
compels a finding that Tunkara was credible. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because the BIA properly denied relief on the basis of adverse credibility,
we decline to reach Tunkara’s remaining arguments. See I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.”). We deem any of Tunkara’s remaining claims waived because he failed to
address them in the argument section of his brief. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n.3.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --