Eissa Al Hajjaje v. Merrick Garland
20-71498
| 9th Cir. | Sep 23, 2021Background
- Petitioner Eissa Al Hajjaje, a Yemeni national, appealed the BIA’s dismissal of an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Ninth Circuit reviews agency factual findings for substantial evidence.
- The agency made an adverse credibility determination based on four factors: (1) misrepresentations to immigration officials, including attempting entry with another person’s U.S. passport; (2) implausible testimony that torturers armed him with multiple weapons immediately after torture; (3) repeated unresponsiveness to questions; and (4) demeanor (visible agitation and glaring at government counsel).
- Because the testimony was found not credible, the agency concluded the remaining record evidence was insufficient to meet the standards for asylum or withholding of removal.
- The agency also denied CAT protection; the court held the documentary record did not compel the conclusion that Al Hajjaje would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Yemen.
- The court denied the petition for review and did not reach the terrorism-bar issue. A temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility of testimony | Al Hajjaje contended his testimony was truthful and explained inconsistencies | Agency argued multiple credibility problems (misrepresentations, implausibility, unresponsiveness, demeanor) | Court upheld adverse credibility finding as supported by substantial evidence |
| Asylum/withholding eligibility absent credible testimony | Al Hajjaje argued other record evidence showed eligibility | Government argued that without credible testimony the record is insufficient | Court held remaining evidence insufficient to establish asylum or withholding |
| CAT protection based on country reports | Al Hajjaje argued reports and testimony show likelihood of torture | Government argued reports do not compel a particularized likelihood of torture absent credible testimony | Court held reports do not compel conclusion he would more likely than not be tortured; CAT denial affirmed |
| Terrorism bar applicability | Al Hajjaje disputed application of terrorism bar | Government argued bar may apply | Court did not reach the terrorism-bar issue because other grounds were dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing agency factual findings)
- Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (high bar to overturn adverse credibility findings)
- Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (insufficiency of evidence when testimony is not credible)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (reports alone must compel likelihood of torture to reverse CAT denial)
- Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (countrywide evidence of torture insufficient without particularized threat)
- Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (need to show petitioner personally faces torture for CAT relief)