Petitioners Adjia Fatou Ndiaye and her minor daughter, natives of Senegal, sought asylum and withholding of removal after fleeing their home country. They alleged persecution by the petitioner's ex-husband's family, including threats of female genital mutilation against the daughter. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied their applications, relying heavily on an adverse credibility determination. The agency found that Ndiaye's testimony contained significant inconsistencies with her written applications and that the timeline she provided regarding her miscarriage, divorce, and her daughter's birth was biologically impossible. The petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the discrepancies were minor confusion regarding dates and movements during their flight.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. The court noted that the agency provided six distinct bases for its adverse credibility finding. These included inconsistencies between Ndiaye's testimony and her asylum application concerning where she lived in Senegal during the eight years prior to her departure, as well as omissions of key details regarding harm inflicted by her ex-husband's family. The court focused heavily on the timeline of events. Ndiaye testified that she suffered a miscarriage in April 2015, divorced her husband in February 2016, and had a daughter who was six months old at the time of the divorce. However, she also submitted a birth certificate stating the daughter was not born until August 2016, six months after the divorce. The court held this timeline was biologically unfeasible and implausible. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that these were minor misstatements, citing the principle that the agency is permitted to afford substantial weight to inconsistencies that bear directly on the claim of persecution. The court affirmed that the agency properly considered the totality of the circumstances and provided specific and cogent reasons for its adverse credibility determination.
The petition for review is denied, and the BIA's decision denying asylum and withholding of removal stands. The court noted that the temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The opinion acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations regarding past and future persecution but clarifies that if material and previously unavailable information arises, the petitioner may file a motion to reopen her removal proceedings.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download