Sonko

MEMORANDUM *

Bintou Sonko and Alasana Bah appeal the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision to deny asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42). Under the transitional rules, we have jurisdiction pursuant to INA § 106(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1148-50 (9th Cir.1997). Because the facts are known to the parties, we relate them herein only as necessary to an understanding of our decision.

We review decisions to deny asylum for abuse of discretion, but review the factual findings upon which that decision is based for substantial evidence. Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720 , 722 (9th Cir.1997). We also review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000).

Sonko’s Credibility

The decision that Sonko’s story about the rape was not credible and that she had not suffered past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Sonko gave inconsistent testimony at the hearing regarding whether the rape was mentioned during the asylum interview. And the alleged rape was not mentioned in the interviewing officer’s notes or written report. 1 These inconsistencies, discrepancies, and contradictions between Sonko’s…