Ramo
Ramo v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Bashar Mikaiel Hermez Ramo petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the grounds that he was not a credible witness. Because the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, we deny the petition for review.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own decision, this court is limited to reviewing only that decision, “except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). In support of its adverse credibility determination, the BIA cited five reasons given by the IJ that the BIA found “substantial and material.” We therefore review only those five reasons for finding Ramo not credible. See Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). 1 Because at least “one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Ramo’s] claim of persecution,” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003), we will uphold the BIA’s credibility finding.