NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0348n.06

No. 18-4094

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ERICK JONATAN ARANDA-CHINCHILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS 

Before: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Erick Aranda-Chinchilla petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture. We deny his petition.

In March 2016, Aranda-Chinchilla, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without 

inspection, near Hidalgo, Texas. Border-patrol officers detained and interviewed him the same 

day. During that interview, Aranda-Chinchilla said that he came to the United States to visit family 

in Ohio and that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Honduras. The government 

thereafter charged Aranda-Chinchilla with removability. Aranda-Chinchilla conceded that he was 

removable, but applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b), withholding of removal under 

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). 

In his applications and at a hearing, Aranda-Chinchilla alleged that he had witnessed a group of 
No. 18-4094, Aranda-Chinchilla v. Barr

-2-

gang members committing a robbery, that the group assumed he had reported the crime, and that 

the group later threatened him. The immigration judge denied Aranda-Chinchilla’s applications, 

finding among other things that he was not credible. The Board affirmed. This petition for review 

followed. 

The Board adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, so we review both the Board’s and 

the IJ’s decisions. See Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145, 1149 (6th Cir. 2010). We review 

legal questions de novo and uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable 

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 

F.3d 667, 670 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

As an initial matter, Aranda-Chinchilla argues that the agency lacked jurisdiction to 

institute removal proceedings against him, because (he says) the agency’s notice to appear was 

defective under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). But 

we have already rejected this argument. See Santos-Santos v. Barr, 917 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir. 

2019).

As for the merits, Aranda-Chinchilla argues that the agency lacked substantial evidence to 

find that he was not credible. The agency based that finding on numerous inconsistencies in 

Aranda-Chinchilla’s testimony. For example, Aranda-Chinchilla testified that he feared 

persecution if he returned to Honduras; but in an earlier sworn statement to a border-patrol agent, 

he said that he did not fear persecution. At the hearing before the IJ, Aranda-Chinchilla sought to 

explain this inconsistency by saying that he had been nervous during the interview with the borderpatrol agent, but the agency did not credit that explanation. Aranda-Chinchilla also testified that 

gang members threatened to kill him; but in an affidavit that he submitted with his applications he 

did not mention any death threat. The agency thus found that, based on the “totality of the 
No. 18-4094, Aranda-Chinchilla v. Barr

-3-

circumstances,” Aranda-Chinchilla was not credible. See El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250, 256 

(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Aranda-Chinchilla identifies no evidence 

that would compel a “reasonable adjudicator” to conclude to the contrary. See id. (quoting 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We therefore have no basis to set aside the agency’s denial of relief.

The petition for review is denied.