United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1358

___________________________

Manuel Gochez-Castro

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Submitted: March 13, 2019

Filed: April 30, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After the government removed Manuel Antonio Gochez-Castro from the

United States in 2006, he illegally reentered the country in 2010. When the

government sought to reinstate his prior removal order, Gochez-Castro expressed a

fear of being returned to his native El Salvador. He asserted that a gang in El

Salvador had targeted him for persecution because he formerly worked for the
national police in an administrative capacity. An immigration judge didn't find his

story credible—a decision the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld. He now

petitions for review in our court. Because we think substantial evidence supports the

agency's credibility findings, we deny the petition.

We review the BIA's decision asthe final agency decision, but to the extent the

BIA adopted the findings or reasoning of the IJ, we also review the IJ's decision.

Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018). To be eligible for the relief that

Gochez-Castro seeks—withholding of removal—he must show that he faces a clear

probability that, in the country to which the IJ ordered him removed, his life or

freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion. Alavez-Hernandez v. Holder, 714

F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2013). We review the agency's decision on withholding of

removal for substantial evidence, and "[t]he IJ's findings, including credibility

determinations, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicatorwould be compelled

to conclude to the contrary." R.K.N. v. Holder, 701 F.3d 535, 537 (8th Cir. 2012).

Since an IJ "is in the best position to make credibility findings because he orshe sees

the witnesses as the testimony is given," id. at 538, a credibility determination

"receives great deference." Etenyi v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1003, 1006–07 (8th Cir. 2015).

The IJ and BIA gave severalspecific, cogent reasons for disbelieving GochezCastro. For example, Gochez-Castro presented letters purportedly from the national

police of El Salvador with several peculiarities: They contained no addresses or

contact information; they contained odd misspellings of "El Salvador" in their

headings; they contained different seals; and they contained the signatures of officers

who purportedly signed the Spanish originals on English versions apparently

translated in the United States. The IJ and BIA also thought it curious that GochezCastro had failed to provide documentation of his father's death when he claimed that

the gang had also murdered his father for working with the national police. Given that

Gochez-Castro worked for the police, the IJ noted that gathering documentation from

-2-
the police should not have been overly difficult. Gochez-Castro's mother, moreover,

submitted a letter on his behalf that omitted any reference to his father's death or the

fact that Gochez-Castro was sending her one thousand dollars each month to satisfy

the gang's extortionate demands, which Gochez-Castro said he had been doing. The

IJ and BIA also found it strange that Gochez-Castro did not report an alleged attack

on himself or his father to the police given his employment there. And we detect no

fault in the IJ and BIA giving threatening letters directed to Gochez-Castro little to

no weight, since Gochez-Castro failed to show who had written them, when theywere

written, or where they came from.

On this record, therefore, we cannot say that a reasonable adjudicator would

be compelled to conclude that Gochez-Castro was credible. "The combination of an

adverse credibility finding and a lack of corroborating evidence for the claim of

persecution means that the applicant's claim fails." Ali v. Holder, 776 F.3d 522, 526

(8th Cir. 2015).

Petition denied.

______________________________

-3-