Sylla v. Blanche

── Sylla v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KOULA SYLLA, No. 25-3525 Agency No. Petitioner, A073-672-614 v. * TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: COLLINS and LEE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Koula Sylla (“Sylla”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. “We review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions because the BIA affirmed the IJ and cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994).” Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 737 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019)). We also “review for substantial evidence whether [Sylla] would more likely than not be tortured if returned to [Mauritania].” Cruz, 146 F.4th at 737 (citing Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010)). 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). The agency permissibly concluded that Sylla made material misrepresentations on various documents submitted to the immigration authorities. On those documents, Sylla did not disclose his December 1995 and June 1996 asylum applications that he filed under two different aliases. Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2025) (“[W]hen an -2- asylum applicant has lied to immigration authorities, an [IJ] can find the applicant not credible, even when the falsehood is not directly related to the basis for the asylum claim.”). The agency also identified a number of other inconsistent and implausible aspects of Sylla’s testimony. Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “even minor inconsistencies may have a legitimate impact on a petitioner’s credibility”); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 836 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A]n IJ may consider . . . the inherent plausibility of a witness’s account.”). For example, Sylla’s testimony about his departure from Mauritania was inconsistent with information he provided in connection with his third asylum application. Moreover, there were various discrepancies in Syl