Charles Abajeih v. Merrick Garland, 20-72348

Petitioner Charles Njoikou Abajeih is a native of Cameroon who was detained twice by Cameroonian authorities; after his first release he lived briefly in Nigeria and used fraudulent Nigerian documents to apply for a U.S. visa.
Petitioner returned to Cameroon, was arrested again in December 2018, beaten, and released in April 2019 after his brother paid the prison commander.
Petitioner entered the U.S. at San Ysidro on September 4, 2019, and gave a sworn INA § 235(b)(1) statement on September 8, 2019, in which he denied using other names or prior visa applications (statements later shown to be false).
In immigration court Petitioner admitted entering without documents and testified inconsistently about the dates of his second arrest and departure from Cameroon; the IJ found internal inconsistencies and material omissions and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility finding and merits analysis for CAT.
The BIA affirmed the IJ on credibility and CAT meritsa; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA decision, denied review as to asylum and withholding, but remanded the CAT claim because the BIA did not discuss country-conditions evidence.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
Whether the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence	Abajeih argued the inconsistencies and omissions were minor or explainable and did not warrant denial	Inconsistencies in testimony, sworn omissions/false statements, and fraudulent conduct showed he was not credible	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility based on internal inconsistencies and sworn falsehoods
Whether denial of CAT relief was proper despite lack of discussion of country conditions	Abajeih argued the IJ/BIA failed to consider country-conditions evidence, which could independently support CAT relief	BIA relied on adverse credibility and merits to deny CAT	Reversed in part: remanded CAT claim because the BIA did not address country-conditions evidence and cannot be assumed to have considered it

Plancarte v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing standards for BIA decisions)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (credibility determinations reviewed under totality of circumstances)
Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (U.S. 2021) (substantial-evidence deference to agency findings)
Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954 (9th Cir. 2021) (minor inconsistencies can support adverse credibility)
Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence standard for credibility findings)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (scope of substantial-evidence review)
Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (omissions generally less probative but may be weighed)
Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (omissions versus direct inconsistencies)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (even minor inconsistencies can bear on veracity)
Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (BIA must explain consideration of CAT factors)
Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to consider country conditions can be reversible error)
Etemadi v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2021) (cannot assume BIA considered matters silent in its opinion)
Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2013) (agency abuses discretion when ignoring evidence)