Malik v. I.N.S.

Full title: Malikimran MALIK, aka Imran Malik, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 23, 2003

79 F. App'x 287 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

79 Fed.Appx. 287 (9th Cir. 2003) Malikimran MALIK, aka Imran Malik, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 02-72474. Agency No. A70-072-108. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 23, 2003

Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Alien filed petition for review of order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that immigration judge's (IJ) adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Petition denied.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before CUDAHY, ^* GOODWIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

* The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The adverse credibility determination survives review under the substantial evidence standard. ¹ The BIA articulated substantial reasons that bear a "legitimate nexus" to the determination. ²

1 Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002).

2 Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir.1990).

The BIA and IJ noted that: (1) Malik returned several times to Pakistan from Iran, despite the claimed danger; (2) Malik's testimony regarding his trip to Dubai was inconsistent with the stamps in his passport; (3) the Country Report does not support Malik's account; (4) Malik's refusal to respond to a subpoena in Pakistan for

Page 288.

fear of bringing himself to the authorities' attention was inconsistent with the letters his family wrote to high-level government officials; and (5) Malik made false statements to a United States immigration official. Also, (6) Malik failed to corroborate his testimony with documentary evidence. Though corroboration is not required, "where the IJ has reason to question the applicant's credibility, and the applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence and provides no credible explanation for such failure, an adverse credibility finding will withstand appellate review." ³

3 Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.2000).

Petition DENIED.