From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baroi v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
72 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


72 Fed.Appx. 682 (9th Cir. 2003) Sova BAROI; Sandra Shilpy Baroi; Stephen Subra Baroi, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-71009. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 15, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Aliens, natives of Bangladesh, petitioned for review of the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported finding that alien was not credible as to her asylum request.

Petition denied.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A72-174-580 to A72-174-582.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Sova Baroi, her adult daughter Sandra Shilpy, and minor son, Stephen Subra, are

Page 683.

natives and citizens of Bangladesh. They petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Because the IJ's decision was based on legitimate articulable findings questioning Baroi's credibility and was supported by specific, cogent reasons, Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir.1994), we deny the petition.

When Sova Baroi first applied for asylum, her children Sandra and Stephen were included as derivative applicants. Her daughter, Sandra, aged out, and therefore filed a separate application. Sandra's application depends on the same facts as her mother.

Sova Baroi submitted an asylum application prepared by someone else. During her interviews with asylum officers, she answered questions in accord with the application. When confronted with contradictory evidence at her deportation hearing, Sova admitted that the application was false, and that she lied to asylum officers in order to be consistent with the false application. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Sova Baroi was not credible because of her admitted history of being dishonest. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1985) (giving the petitioner's testimony "very little weight" because of a pattern of dishonesty).

Moreover, there were internal inconsistencies in Sova Baroi's testimony concerning when she received a copy of her asylum application and she offered no explanation when given an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. See Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2000).

Further, Sova Baroi's testimony was contradicted by her daughter's testimony regarding events following Sova's alleged rape. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Baroi v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
72 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Baroi v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:Sova BAROI; Sandra Shilpy Baroi; Stephen Subra Baroi, Petitioners, v. John…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 15, 2003

Citations

72 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2003)