Deo
Deo v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Deo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) summary decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims and his motion to remand. Deo’s wife and two children seek derivative asylum status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny Deo’s petition.
The IJ determined Deo failed to establish his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13 , 208.16, because Deo’s entire case rested on testimony from Deo and his sister-in-law that the IJ found incredible. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence and must affirm unless Deo demonstrates that the evidence compels us to conclude that the IJ’s finding was erroneous, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B).
The IJ had “a legitimate articulable basis to question [Deo’s] credibility, and ... offer[ed] a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Deo suggests eight grounds on which the IJ based her finding…