Imaku
Imaku v. Holder
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Martins Imaku, his wife, Amina, their minor children Azemobho, Iloubhe, and Omonegho, and Martins’ adult children, Christopher and Mary, petition this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of their case The BIA affirmed an adverse credibility determination of the immigration judge and affirmed the IJ’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Martins Imaku argues the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), and we deny the petition.
We review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s when the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision by citing to Matter of Burbano, 20 I & N Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), as it did here. Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2007). An adverse credibility determination will stand unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (internal citations omitted).
The IJ found that Martins Imaku was not credible because, among other things, one of the…