NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO JARAMILLO-LAUREANO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71498 

Agency No. A205-054-182 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Jaramillo-Laureano (Jaramillo) petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

finding that he had filed a frivolous asylum application and was not entitled to 

asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny 

the petition.

1. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial 

evidence and will uphold it “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled 

to conclude to the contrary.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 

2016). Where, as here, an IJ gives several reasons for his adverse credibility 

finding, it must be upheld “so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by 

substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the alien’s claim of persecution.” Rizk 

v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (alterations omitted). In postREAL ID Act cases like this, “[a]lthough inconsistencies no longer need to go to 

the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the 

claim it doubtless is of great weight.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 

(9th Cir. 2010).

Jaramillo’s claims for relief from removal centered around an incident in 

which his sister-in-law and son were allegedly kidnapped in Mexico. Substantial 

evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Jaramillo testified inconsistently about the 

timing of this kidnapping and whether it was the motivating factor behind his 

decision to bring his family to the United States. 

Jaramillo first testified that the kidnapping occurred in 2006 or 2008 and that 

it led him to begin to bring his wife and children to the United States. Jaramillo’s 
3 

asylum application listed most of his family members as having entered the United 

States in 2009, which would have been consistent with his initial testimony. But 

after being confronted with evidence that the kidnapping had instead taken place in 

2011—after most of his family had already left Mexico—Jaramillo changed his 

story and claimed that threats and requests for payment that preceded the 

kidnapping were what had actually motivated him to bring his family to the United 

States. This inconsistent testimony went to the heart of Jaramillo’s claims for 

relief from removal and therefore provided a sufficient basis for the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination.1 Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(“Testimony about the events leading up to the petitioner’s departure, or about the 

circumstances that led to the persecution, go to the ‘heart of the claim.’”).

2. Jaramillo was given an adequate opportunity to explain the 

inconsistencies in his testimony. On cross-examination, the Government asked 

Jaramillo why he had initially testified that the kidnapping motivated him to bring 

his family to the United States only to later concede that the kidnapping took place 

in 2011, after most of his family had already arrived in the U.S. See Rizk, 629 F.3d 

at 1088 (“[T]he opportunity to explain may be provided through cross-examination 

. . . .”). Jaramillo said only that he had been mixed up by the questioning and had 

1

In light of our conclusion, we need not address whether the other grounds 

given for the adverse credibility determination were supported by substantial 

evidence.
4 

misremembered the dates because he was “always working.” This was not a 

“reasonable and plausible explanation,” and the IJ was entitled to reject it. See id. 

Likewise, the record does not compel the conclusion that the inconsistencies in 

Jaramillo’s testimony could be attributed to nervousness or lack of education. 

3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that absent his 

discredited testimony, Jaramillo failed to carry his burden of establishing that he 

was entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT.2

4. On de novo review, we conclude that the IJ properly applied the

framework from Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 155 (BIA 2007), in 

determining that Jaramillo filed a frivolous asylum application. See Kulakchyan v. 

Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Jaramillo received 

notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application, and the IJ made a 

specific frivolousness finding. See Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 155. 

Jaramillo’s inconsistent testimony regarding the circumstances and timing of the 

kidnapping provided sufficient evidence to support the IJ’s finding that he

deliberately fabricated his account of the incident.

PETITION DENIED.

2 We do not reach the BIA’s alternative holding that Jaramillo’s asylum 

application was untimely.