N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

W ALTER

RENE C ASTELLANOSM ONZON, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72434 Age n c y No. A071-602-585
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B EA, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd B A STIAN, *** Distric t Judge
.



# F IL ED
JAN 18 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Sta nle y Alle n B a s tia

n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of W a s hington, sitting by de signa t ion.W a lte r R e ne C a ste l la nos-M onz on (“ C a ste lla

n os-M onz on” ), a

c itiz e n of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision dism

issing his a

ppe a l. The B IA a dopte d a nd a ffirm e d the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ations for re lie f unde r the Nic ara gua n Adjustm e nt a

nd C e ntra l Am e ric an R e lie f Ac t (NAC AR A), a sy l um

and withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re que s t for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture ( CAT). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition.

Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the de nia l of re lie f on a d

v e rse c re dibility grounds. TheIJ m

ust provide“ s pe c ific c oge nt re a sons” for a dve rse c re dibility findings, a

nd the re a sons se t

forth m u st be “ substa

ntia l a nd m ust be a r a le gitim ate
ne xus to the finding.” S

e e Lope z-Re y e s v . I.N .S. , 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th C ir. 1996). The IJ ga ve spe c ific c oge nt re a sons for its a dve rse c re dibility finding he re : the Asy lum Offic e r (AO) te stifie d c re dibly ; C a ste l la nos-M onz on’ s da

ughte r wa s flue nt in English a

nd Spa nish; heindic ate d he did not ha v e any trouble unde rsta

nding his da ughte r; a m onitor wa s pre se nt who wa s liste n ing to theinte rvie w; his te stim ony
wa s re a d ba c k to him

at the c o n c lusion of the

inte rvie w; the nature of the inc o nsiste nc i e s we re too gre at t o attributeto m isunde rsta nding or
m isc o m m unic ation; a

nd fina lly , C a ste lla

nos-M onz on e xpla ine d at the he aring tha t he ha d only

obse rve d pe ople be ing subje c te d to e le c tric shoc ks or ha ving a ba g
2pla c e d ove r the ir he a ds, c ontra dic ting his prior sta t e m e nts. Thosere a sons we re spe c ific , c oge nt, a

nd providesubsta

ntia l e vide nc e to support the IJ’ s c re dibility de te rm i nation. B e c a use we uphold theIJ’ s c re dibility de te rm ination, C a ste lla nos-M onz on’ s
a dm ission tha

t he pa rtic ipate d in thepe rse c ution of others supports the Unite d Stat e s’ prim a

fa c ie c a se tha

t the pe rse c utor ba

r a pplie s in this c a s e . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (ba

rring pe rse c utors from a sy lum ), § 1231(b)(3)(B )(i) (barring pe rse c utors from

withholding of rem ova l); 8 C
. F.R . § 1240.66(a) (barring pe rse c utors from

spe c i a l rule c a

nc e lla tion of re m ova l). M ore ove r, C a ste llanosM onz o n fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proving tha t he did not e nga ge in the pe rse c ution of others. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1240.8(d) (whe n the “ e vide nc e indic ate s” tha t the p e rse c utor ba

r “ m ay a pply , ” the burde n shifts to the a lie n to e sta

blish tha t it doe s not a pply by a pre ponde ra

nc e of the e vide nc e ). And the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t C a ste lla nos-M onz on fa ile d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or tha t he ha d a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution is supporte d by the re c ord; the re is no e vide nc e of torture to support his CA T c la im
. Fina lly , C a ste lla

nos-M onz on fa ile d to e xha ust his c la im

be fore the B IA that his due proc e ss rights we re viola te d. Se e Barron v

. Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha t a pe titione r’ s fa i lure to ra i se an issue be fore the B IA

3de prive s this c ourt of jurisdic tion to c onside r the issue ). As suc h, we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r his due proc e ss c la i m s.

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4