T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OS E MI R AN DA VA R E L A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70979 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 534- 635 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os e M i r andaV ar e l a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um and w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , and of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve



# FI LED JU N 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 70979 2 j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew fo r su b st an t i al ev i d en ce an ad v erse c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n , Ch e b c h o u b v . I NS , 25 7 F . 3d 10 38 , 10 42 (9th C i r. 20 01 ), an dw e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on be c aus e V ar e l a ’ s t e s t i m onytha tc i vi l de f e ns e f or c e m e m be r s a tt a c ke d hi m i n 1994 w as i ncon si st entw i th h i s s t at em enti n h i s a sy l um appl i cat i on thatthe att ac k oc c urr e d i n 2001. I n a ddi t i on, hi s t e s t i m onyw a s i nt e rna l l yi nc ons i s t e ntr e gar di ng w h e th e rm e m b e r s o f

th e c iv il d e f

e n s e f o r c e k ille dh is g r an d f

a th e ran dm o th e r . T h e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s g o to th e h e art o f h is c la im . See D on v. G on zales , 476 F . 3d 7 3 8 , 7 4 1 - 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . I n th e ab s e n c e o f c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , V ar e laf a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t h e is e lig ib le f o ra s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. See Farah v. A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng V ar e l a ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, because the B IA consi dere d the evi dence he subm i tt ed and act ed w i thi n i t s broad d is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to w arr an t r e o p e n in g . See S i n gh v . I

NS , 2 9 5 F .3 d1 0 3 7 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to re op en shal l be re vers ed on l y i f i ti s “ arbi trary , i rr at i on alor contraryt o l aw . ”) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.