Begum

MEMORANDUM *

Rozeena Begum petitions for review of the January 31, 2008, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

The agency’s determinations are reviewed under the standard of substantial evidence and must be upheld unless the evidence in the administrative record compels a contrary result. Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir.2006); see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). Because the BIA reviewed the IJ’s decision for clear error and referenced illustrative “examples” from the IJ’s decision, our review includes the decision of the IJ because it was incorporated by the BIA. See Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2008).

Some of the bases cited to support the adverse credibility determination are ques *107 tionable under the caselaw that applies in this pre-REAL ID Act case. However, as long as one of the identified grounds underlying an adverse credibility…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from my colleagues. I disagree that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based on the discrepancy as to who escorted Begum to report the March 1998 rape. If discrepancies “cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance [her] claims of persecution, [they] have no bearing on her credibility.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2000) (second alteration in original). The salient point for Begum’s claim of persecution is that she was raped, not who accompanied her to the police station days later. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, Begum gave a plausible explanation for this inconsistency, which the IJ mentioned only in passing, failing to suggest any reason she found it not credible. Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir.2004).

In the absence of this inconsistency, I would reverse the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The heart of Begum’s claim is fear for her safety in Fiji, after Fijian soldiers repeatedly raped her on account of her political beliefs. Begum’s inconsistencies with respect to persecution suffered by her father are incidental to the heart of…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 30 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ROZEENA BEGUM, No. 08-70629

Petitioner, Agency No. A077-539-901

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted July 16, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Rozeena Begum petitions for review of the January 31, 2008, order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Immigration

Judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The agency’s determinations are reviewed under the standard of substantial

evidence and must be upheld unless the evidence in the administrative record

compels a contrary result. Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d…