Roseline Dieu Seul v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Roseline Dieu Seul,
Petitioner,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-674
Agency No. A209-871-974
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Roseline Dieu Seul, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that affirmed an Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of Dieu Seul’s applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA
determined that Dieu Seul failed to establish eligibility for relief from removal
* 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).
FILED
MAR 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 21-674
because she was not credible and she failed to establish that she would be
tortured if removed to Haiti. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
1. Dieu Seul challenges the IJ’s admission of her border interview
(Form I-213) and the Record of Sworn Statement in Administrative
Proceedings, claiming that they were not properly authenticated. Dieu Seul,
however, failed to present any evidence beyond speculation that the person who
signed the certification stamp was not authorized under 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6(a).
Further, the admission of these documents was probative and their admission
was fundamentally fair. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.
2012) (outlining that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence is whether the
evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair” (alternation in the
original) (citation omitted)). Dieu Seul does not dispute the accuracy of the
documents, and, when asked, admitted to telling the border agent that she had
no fear of returning to Haiti. Furthermore, the IJ considered Dieu Seul’s
objections and gave the documents the appropriate weight. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.7(a). Accordingly, Dieu Seul has not met her “burden of establishing a
basis for exclusion [of these documents] . . . with enough negative factors to
persuade the court not to admit [them].” Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th
Cir. 1995).
2. Dieu Seul challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, arguing
that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, she argues that,

-- 2 of 4 --

3 21-674
as a newly arriving alien, her statements to the border agent did not include
every detail of her persecution; that the discrepancies in dates and ages have no
bearing on her credibility and were minor; and that the IJ’s demeanor findings
did not specifically refer to the non-credible aspects of her demeanor. We
review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and may not reverse
“unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Silva-
Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016)).
The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by Dieu Seul’s
inconsistent statements with regard to whether she had a fear of returning to
Haiti. This inconsistency was not an omission of mere detail but rather the sole
basis of her asylum claim and was “of great weight.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, minor inconsistencies have a
bearing on a petitioner’s credibility. Id. at 1043 n.4. While inconsistencies as to
dates generally are considered trivial, see Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086
(9th Cir. 2011), Dieu Seul’s discrepancies with regard to whether she left Haiti
when she was 14 or 24 were significant, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738,
741 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that the petitioner’s inability to state when he began
employing the man that led him to flee his country “went to the heart” of his
claim). Finally, the IJ’s demeanor finding references specific aspects of Dieu
Seul’s demeanor, which called her credibility into question. See Manes v.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 21-674
Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The adverse
credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.
3. Dieu Seul challenges the denial of CAT relief, arguing that it was
“erroneous based upon the documentary evidence submitted.” However, she
does not point to any documentary evidence that shows it is more likely than not
that she will be tortured in Haiti. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir.2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --