DINI v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

Mahad Dini, a native and citizen of Somalia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Dini argues that the agency's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition.

Credibility determinations based on an applicant's demeanor are entitled to “special deference.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, the Immigration Judge found Dini's testimony not credible principally on the basis of his demeanor during cross-examination. The Immigration Judge observed that Dini appeared “defensive,” that he was “visibly angered by some of the questions asked of him,” and that the volume of his voice dramatically increased in response to some questions that appeared to offend him. Although “most witnesses are uncomfortable and nervous when being cross-examined,” courts must defer to an Immigration Judge's “ability to differentiate between the usual level of anxiety and [an applicant's] behavior.” Id.

At least some of the additional bases for the agency's credibility determination find support in the record. It was not clear error, for example, for the Immigration Judge to find suspicious that two of the purportedly Somalian government-issued documents Dini submitted were dated erroneously to reflect the date of Dini's auto accident, rather than the date on which they must have been prepared. Given the demeanor-based findings, the agency's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.