18

- 1172 Buestan Rojas v. Garland BIA A 206 869 546 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


## SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thu rgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 8 t h d a y of N o v e m b e r , two thousand 3 twenty

- two

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JON O. NEWMAN , 7 DENNY CHIN , 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN , 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 GLADYS YOLANDA BUESTAN ROJAS , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 18

- 1172 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL , 19 Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 212 FOR PETITIONER : Glen L. Formica , Formica , Williams, P.C., New 1 Haven, CT

. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Brianne Whelan Cohen , Senior 5 Litigation Counsel ; Deitz P. Lefort , Trial 6 Attorney , Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED. 13

Petitioner Gladys Yolanda Buestan Rojas , a native and citizen of Ecuador , 14

seek s review of a n April 18, 2018 decision of the BIA , denying her motion to 15

reconsider the denial of her petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 16
under the Convention Against To rture

. In re Gladys Yolanda Buestan Rojas , 17

No. A 206 869 546 (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2018 )

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 18
the underlying facts and procedural history. 19

We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See 20
Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider 21

“shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order

. ” 8 U.S.C. 223 § 1229a(c)(6) (C) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 1
265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). 2

As an initial matter, t he BIA excused Buestan Rojas’s failure to exhaust her 3
challenge to the underlying adverse

- credibility determination when it thoroughly 4

addressed that determination in both its dismissal of Buestan Rojas’s appeal from 5
the IJ and its denial of her motion to reconsider

. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of 6

Homeland Sec. , 446 F.3d 289, 296

– 97 (2d Cir. 200 6) (excusing a petitioner’s failure to 7

raise a n issue before the BIA where the BIA considered the claim ). We therefore 8
have jurisdiction to consider Buestan Rojas’ petition as to the agency’s adverse

9
credibility finding. See id. 10

Nevertheless, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reverse its 11
prior decision , which was not based on an error of law or fact

. See 8 U.S.C

. 12
§ 1229a(c)( 6)(C )

. Specifically, t he agency’s adverse

- credibility determination was 13
supported by Buestan Rojas’s inconsistent statements regarding

– among other 14
things

– whether she had ever been in the United States before , whether she feared 15
harm or persecution if returned to Ecuador , whether she was apprehended and 16

removed to Mexico when she first entered the United States in 2001 , and whether 17
she left Ecuador in 2014 without her husband’s knowledge or assist ance

. 184 Although Buestan Rojas was provided an opportunity to explain these 1

inconsistencies during her removal hearing , she failed to do so

. These 2

inconsistencies therefore support ed the agency’s adverse

- credibility 3

determination

. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 4
n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from 5
showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies 6
would so preclude even more forceful ly.”)

. T hus , the BIA did not abuse its 7

discretion in denying Buestan Rojas ’s motion to reconsider

. S ee 8 U.S.C. 8
§ 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao , 265 F.3d at 90. 9
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED

. All pending 10
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 13 Clerk of Court 14