N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANTOS SANDOVAL, AKA Sa ntos Gonz a le z -Sandova l, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-73749 Age n c y No. A206-406-299 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 Argue d April 15, 2016 Subm itte d August 9, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, B E A, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Santos Sa ndova l, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a fina l orde r of re m ova l from the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). The B IA dism isse d Sandova l’ s a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, prote c tion unde r the Unite d



# FIL ED AUG 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.Nations C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ), and volunta ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant the pe tition a s to volunta ry de pa rture ; we dism iss in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition a s to a sy l um , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r C AT. 1. Sandova l first a

rgue s tha t the IJ e rre d in dismissing his a sy lum c la im a s untim e l y unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ) be c a u se the IJ fa ile d to m a

k e e xpre ss fa c t ua l findings re ga

rding Sa ndova l’ s la st da

te of e n try . The IJ did not e rr be c a use the s tat ute doe s not re quire the IJ to m ake e xpre ss findings, se e id. , a nd Sa ndova l ha s not offe re d a

n a lte rnate date of e ntry

tha t would fa ll within the

one -y e a r bar. C f. Matte r of F-P-R- , 24 I. & N. De c . 681, 684–85 (B .I.A. 2008) (holding tha t the IJ e rre d in c a l c ulating theone -y e ar bar from the a l ie n’ s 1989 da

te of a rriva l whe n re c o rd e vide nc e showe d tha t the a lie n le ft the Unite d Stat e s, re t urne d in 2005, a

nd file d his a sy lum

a pplic ation le ss tha

n one y e ar late r). To the e xte nt Sa ndova l c ha lle nge s the IJ’ s finding tha t Sa ndova l la st e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s in 2003, this argum e nt ra ise s que stions of fa c t tha t we la c k jurisdic tion to re v ie w. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1158(a )(2)(B ), 1252(a )(2)(D). 2. The IJ de nie d Sandova l’ s a pplic at ion for withholding of re m ova l ba se d on a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding, a

nd the B IA a ffirm e d. Sa

ndova l c o nte nds tha

t the re c ord c om

pe l s re ve rsa l of the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding be c a

u se tha t 2finding wa s ba se d on c ontrive d inc onsiste n c ie s in Sa n dova l’ s te stim ony

and im m ate ria l om issions in his a sy lum a pplic ation. W e disa gre e . Sandova l file d his pe tition a fte r M a y 11, 2005, so the

REAL ID Ac t gove rns. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w a

n IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding under the de fe re ntia l substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

n da rd, Ai J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd “ only the m ost e x tra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s will justify

ove rturning a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion,” Shre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1041 (c ita

tion omitte d). He re , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Sa ndova l te stifie d inc onsiste ntly

a bout these rie s of e ve n t s tha t le d him to fle e from

El Sa lva d or in 2003. Sa

ndova l first told the IJ tha t m e m be rs of the M ara

Sa lvatruc ha ga ng sta rte d ha ra s sing him

in 2000, but la

te r told theIJ tha

t the ha ra ssm e nt did not be gin until 2002, afte r a le a de r of the ga ng shot a t him . The IJ wa s e ntitle d to ba s e his a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination on this inc onsiste nc y be c a use San dova l’ s c onfronta tions with the

ga ng le a de r and the M ara s “ form e d the c rux of his a pplic ation for re lie f.” Id. at 1047; se e also id. at 1046–47 (upholding a n a dve rse c re d ibility

finding whe re the pe titione r te s tifie d tha t “ M a oists ha d

inquire d a

bout him on two oc c a sions, in 1998 a nd 2001,” but wrote in his de c l ara tion tha t

3“ M a oists ha

ve be e n inquiring a

bout [his] whe re a

bouts fre que ntly ” (a l te ra tion in origina l)). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Sa ndova l te stifie d inc o nsiste ntly

a bout whe the r he ha d re a d a gove rnm e nt re port re ga

rding his fa the r’ s de ath. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii) (a n IJ m ay ba se a c re dibility de te rm i nation on the

“ inte rna l c onsiste nc y ” and truthfulne s s of the a pplic ant’ s ora l te stim ony ). Sandova l first told the IJ tha t he ha d re a d the re port, but, whe n pre s se d, he a dm itte d tha

t he ha d not re a d

it, but knew of its c onte nts be c a use his
m othe r an d brothe r ha d re a d the re port. 3. Sandova l ne xt a

rgue s tha t the proc e e dings be fore the IJ viola te d his due
proc e s s rights. Again, we disa gre e . The IJ ga ve Sandova l a

m ple opportunity

to te stify a bout the pa s t ha

ra ssm e nt he c la im e d

to ha ve suffe re d at

the ha nds of the M ara s a nd his fe ar of future pe rse c ution. The re fore , Sandova l’ s he aring wa s not

“ so funda m e nta l ly unfa ir tha

t [he ] wa s pre ve nte d from re a sona bly pre se nting his c a se .” Padilla-Martine

z v . Holde r , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C i r. 2014) (c ita tion om i tte d); c

f . C ruz Re n d on v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010) (finding viola tion of dueproc e ss whe re the IJ pre v e nte d the pe titione r from te stify ing a

bout he r e xpe rie nc e s a

n d de nie d he r a

c o ntinua nc e to c olle c t a dditiona l e vide nc e ).

44. Sandova l ha s not shown tha t “ it is m ore like ly

tha n not” he will be torture d upon his re turn to El Sa lva dor, so he ha s not e sta blishe d e ligibility

for re lie f unde r C AT. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). 5. Sandova l e xha

uste d his pe tition for volunta ry de p arture be c a

use the IJ disc usse d this form

of re lie f, and the B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de c ision by c iting Matte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872, 874 (B .I.A. 1994). Se eC hue n Piu K

w o ng v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 872, 877 (9th C ir. 2011) (whe n the B IA c ite s Matte r of Burbano , “ the IJ’ s disc ussion of [a n] issue is suffic ie nt, in a

n d of itse lf, to ove rc o m e [an] e xha

ustion c ha lle nge ” ). The IJ de nie d Sandova l v olunta ry de pa rture a fte r c onc luding tha t his c onvic tion unde r C a l. Pe na l C ode § 273.5 wa s for a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude(“ C IM T” ). Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229c (b)(1)(B ) (an a lie n is e ligible for volunta ry de pa rture only if “ the a l ie n is, a

nd ha s be e n, a

pe rson of good m ora l c ha ra c te r for a t le a st 5 y e ars” ); se e also id. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(A) (an a lie n is not of good m

ora l c ha ra c t e r if he wa s c o nvic te d of a C IM T). The IJ de te rm ine d that se c tion 273.5 is broa

de r tha n the ge ne ric fe de ra l de finition of C IM T . Se e Morale s-Garc ia v
. Holde r , 567 F.3d 1058, 1064–65 (9th C ir. 2009). The IJ the n de c ide d tha

t se c tion 273.5 is divisible , a nd he de nie d re lie f a fte r noting tha t “ the

5c om

pla i nt[] c le arly

re fle c t[s] tha

t the vic tim

wa s the m o the r of the re sponde nt’ s c hild.” The IJ did not ha

ve the be ne fit of re c e nt c a se la w tha t m ay be ar on the que stion whe the r se c tion 273.5 is c ate goric a lly a C IM T a nd whe the r the sta

tute is divisible
. Se e Mathis v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2243, 2256–57 (2016) (c la rify i ng how to de te rm ine whe the r a sta tute is divisible

and, thus, susc e ptible to the a pplic ation of the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h); C

arrillo v . Holde r , 781 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (9th C ir. 2015) (finding tha t se c tion 273.5 is c ate goric a l ly a c rim e of dom e stic viole n c e ); Pe o plev . Burton , 196 C a l. R ptr. 3d 392, 395–99 (C t . App. 2015) (disa gre e ing with our c onc lusion in Morale s-Garc ia v . Holde r , 567 F.3d 1058, 1064–67 (9th C ir. 2009), tha t se c tion 273.5 is not c ate goric a l ly a C IM T). Ac c ordingly , we grant Sa ndova l’ s pe tition for re vie wwith re spe c t to his c la im for volunta ry de pa rture and re m and this c a se to the B IA to re c onside r that c la im
. Se e C e ron v . Holde r , 747 F.3d 773, 784 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (“ [T] he prude nt c ourse of a c t ion is to re m and this c a se to the B IA to c onside r the issue in the first insta nc e . . . . Tha

t first opportunity

to de c ide is e s pe c ia lly

im porta n t be c a use . . . we ordina rily de fe r to the B IA’ s de te rm ination whe the r a sta te sta tute c ate goric a lly c onstitute s a

c rim e i nvolving mora l turpitude .” ).

6PE T IT IO N G RANT E D in par t, DE NIE D in par t, and DISM ISSE D in

par t; RE M ANDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar its own c osts.

7