NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRUDENCIO PEREZ-GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71737 

Agency No. A201-021-905 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 6, 2020**

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Prudencio Perez-Gonzalez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. 

The facts are known to the parties, so we do not repeat them here.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

I

“[A]bsent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction to 

review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to prove” the 

requisite hardship for cancellation of removal. Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 

642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). PerezGonzalez argues that we have jurisdiction because the immigration judge (IJ)

reviewing his application applied the wrong legal standard. However, he fails to 

show any legal error in the decision. For example, he claims that the IJ failed to 

conduct a future-oriented analysis, but the IJ did consider future aspects, including 

the fact that Perez-Gonzalez’s youngest child was expected to remain enrolled in 

therapy until the age of three. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review his 

claim.

II

Perez-Gonzalez contends that the IJ violated his due process rights because 

he exceeded his role as an impartial arbiter when he questioned Perez-Gonzalez, 

his lawyer, and the translator about the inconsistency between Perez-Gonzalez’s 

testimony, his father’s original death certificate, and the translation. However, the 

IJ has the statutory authority to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien 

and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). He did not violate Perez-Gonzalez’s 

due process rights by asking tough questions. Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 
3 

782 n.9 (9th Cir. 2000).

III

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-Gonzalez 

was not credible in his testimony about the inconsistency involving the 

circumstances of his father’s death. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–

40 (9th Cir. 2010). Perez-Gonzalez argues that the adverse credibility 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the omission was 

an innocent oversight. However, the record did not compel the IJ or the BIA to 

accept Perez-Gonzalez’s account when the alternative explanation—that he 

omitted significant adverse information—was supported by the record. See Don v. 

Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007).

IV

Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination, 

Perez-Gonzalez has not met his burden of proof that he is eligible for either 

asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), or withholding of 

removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also In re M–S–, 

21 I. & N. Dec. 125, 129 (B.I.A. 1995) (“A persecution claim which lacks veracity 

cannot satisfy the burdens of proof and persuasion necessary to establish eligibility 

for asylum and withholding relief.”).

Accordingly, we need not decide whether he demonstrated an extraordinary 
4 

circumstance that excuses the late filing of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Nor need we reach whether “Americanized Mexicans” or 

individuals who refused to join the Line cartel constitute “particular social 

group[s]” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

V

Although Perez-Gonzalez provided country reports which suggest that there 

are ongoing human rights abuses in Mexico, none of this evidence compels the

conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured if he returns to Mexico. 

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. Perez-Gonzalez argues that the BIA’s analysis of his 

eligibility for CAT relief was deficient because it failed meaningfully to address 

country conditions in Mexico. However, the BIA is not required to discuss each 

piece of evidence in specific terms; it may use general language to show that it 

considered all the evidence in the record. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791–92

(9th Cir. 2014).

Perez-Gonzalez’s petition for review as to his claim for cancellation of 

removal is DISMISSED, and his petition for review as to his claims for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief is DENIED.