N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSUE PEREZ-REB O LLAR ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-74211 Age n c y No. A205-920-543
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 M arc h 17, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SHEA, *** Distric t Judge
. Josue Pe re z -R e bolla

r, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c i sion a ffirm ing the im m igration 

# F IL ED
MAY10 2017 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble Edwa rd F. She a , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve n tion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). B e c a use the B IA a dopte d the IJ’ s de c ision but also put forth its own re a soning, were vie w both de c i sions. Se e Me d ina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th C i r. 2014). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re v ie w. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination, whic h the B IA a ffirm e d
. Unde r the REAL ID Ac t c re dibility sta nda rds, the IJ wa s
re quire d to a sse ss Pe re z ’ s c re dibility by looking a t the tota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); Shre stha v . Holde r , 5 90 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2010). The se inc lude , am ong othe r things, the “ c o n siste nc y ” and

“ inhe re n t pla

usibility” of his te stim ony . Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1040. The IJ wa s
re quire d to support his a

d v e rse c re dibility

finding by pointing to “ spe c ific insta nc e s in the re c ord.” Id. at 1042. The IJ prope rly

re l i e d on a

nd c ite d thre e inc o n siste nc e s in Pe re z ’ s te s tim ony , a s we ll a s a

n im pla usible sta te m e nt, to e xpla in why

he found Pe re z ’ s te s tim ony
a bout his 2013 c onvic tion not c re dible . Pe re z gave c onflic ting a n swe rs a s to whe the r he live d in the a

p artm e nt whe re polic e found drugs a nd fire arm s at the tim e of his a

rre st. De spite giving polic e the nam e s of two pe ople living in tha t
a pa rtm e nt, he c la im e d during his he a ring not to know the

nam e s of a

ny one who
2live d the re . M ore ove r, though Pe re z initia lly c la im e d during his he aring not to

know the nam e s of the drugs he sold, helate r a c knowle dge d tha t he ha d sold
m arijua na , c ra c k c oc a ine , c o c a i ne , a nd he roin. Furthe r, the IJ note d tha t Pe re z te stifie d, im

pla usibly , tha

t he ha d not purc ha se d the drugs he sold but re c e ive d the m for fre e . Howe ve r, e ve n

if Pe re z ha d be e n

de e m e d c re dible , tha

t de te rm i nation would not ha ve a lte re d the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t his c onvic tion wa s pa rtic u la rly se rious. 2. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t Pe re z ’ s
c onvic tion wa s pa

rtic ula rly se rious. The a ge nc y

prope rly found tha

t “ the nature of the c onvic tion, theunde rly ing fa c ts a nd c irc um sta

nc e s [,] and the se nte nc e im pose d justif[ie d] the pre sum

ption tha t [Pe re z wa s] a

da nge r to the c om

m unity .” De lgado
v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). The a ge n c y

c o nc lude d tha

t Pe re z ’ s c onvic tion wa s pa rtic ula rly se rious be c a use the polic e re port from his a rre st indic at e d tha

t he wa s “ se e n se lling drugs in a n a pa rtm e nt pa rking lot” ; “ a dm itte d to the polic e tha t he ha d be e n

se lling c ra c k
c oc a ine , c oc a ine ba se , he roin, a nd m a rijua n a ” ; “ a dm itte d m aking 28 sa le s, e arning $100-150 pe r day , ove r the c ourse of 3 we e ks” ; a nd “ a dm itte d living in a

pa rtm e nt 38 for 3 we e ks with 2 others, whe re he roin, m e tha m phe tam i ne , c ra c k c oc a i ne , m arijua na , sc a le s, pa c king m ate ria l s, a nd 10 fire arm s we re found.”
3The a ge n c y ’ s findings were prope r. Se e Pe re z-Palafox v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th C ir. 2014) (de s c ribing theB IA’ s de te rm ination tha t a c onvic tion for transporta

tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine wa s pa

rtic ula rly se rious); Ramire

z -Ramos
v . IN S , 814 F.2d 1394, 1397 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ The re is no que stion tha t this c irc uit ha s ratifie d the B IA’ s c onsiste nt vie w tha t c onvic tions for drug posse ssion a nd tra ffic king a

re pa rtic ula rly se rious . . . .” ). Though Pe re z c onte nds tha t the
se riousne ss of his c onvic tion wa s dim inishe d by his le n ie nt se nte n c e and the fa c t that he sold drugs to he lp his m othe r, the B IA ha s e s ta blishe d tha

t suc h
c irc um s ta nc e s are a c c orde d littleand no we ight, re spe c tive ly
. Se e In reN –A–M– , 24 I. & N. De c . 336, 343 (B IA 2007) (e xpla ining tha t the “ se nte nc e im

pose d is not
a dom ina nt fa c tor” in de te rm i ning whe the r a c onvic tion wa s pa rtic ula rly se rious); Matte r of G–G–S– , 26 I. & N. De c . 339, 343 (B IA 2014) (noting tha t the de te rm i nation of se riousne ss “ d oe s not involve an e xam ination of a n a lie n ’ s pe rsona l c irc um sta

nc e s a nd e quitie s, suc h a s fam ily or c om m unity tie s” ). 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r C AT. To re c e ive C AT prote c tion, Pe re z bore the burde n of proving tha t it
wa s “ m ore like ly

tha n n o t tha t he . . . would be torture d if re m ove d” to M e xic o. N uru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Al-Sahe r v . IN

S , 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th C ir. 2001)). Though “ c ountry

4c onditions alone c an pla y a de c isive role ” in gra

nting C AT re l ie f, K

amalthas v

. IN S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th C ir. 2001), Pe re z ne e de d to show tha t the c onditions
we re suc h tha

t torture wa s like ly

unde r the “spe c ific c i rc um sta nc e s” of his c a se , Go
v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2011) (e m pha s is in original). The c ountry

c ondition re

ports in there c ord did not support a like l ihood of future torture . Though the y showe d viole nc e re late d to drug tra ffic king in M e xic o, the y did not show tha

t Pe re z wa s spe c ific a lly

at risk. His c onte ntion tha

t drug
c arte ls or c rim ina l ga

n gs would ta

rge t him be c a use he pre viously

live d in the Unite d State s, a nd thus would be

pe rc e ive d a s we a lthy , wa s unsupporte d. In
a ddition, tha

t argum e nt wa s c ontra dic te d by the fa c t tha t his fa m ily in M e xic o ha s not be e n ha

rm e d de s pite it be ing known tha t the y are re late d to pe rsons in the Unite d State s. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

5