N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARLOS EM ILIO R ODR IGUEZ JUARE Z, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-73815 Age n c y No. A209-127-654
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 Subm itte d

June 14, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE, C ALLAHAN, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos Em ilio Ro d

rigue z Jua

re z is a c itiz e n of Hondura s who e n te re d the Unite d State s without a

va lid e ntry

doc um e n t on August 15, 2016. An im m igrat ion judge (IJ) de nie d

R odrigue z Jua

re z ’ s a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of



# FIL ED JUL 8 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). The B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) a ffirm e d. Pe titione r argue s for re lie f on two grounds. 1 First, pe titione r c o nte nds tha t the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation
wa s c le arly

e rrone ous be c a

use pe titione r subse que n tly re c ante d his inc onsiste nt te stim ony . Se c ond, pe titione r a sse rts tha t the IJ e rre d in finding tha t he wa s ine l igible for C AT prote c tion be c a use he ha d fa ile d to e s ta

blish tha t the gove rnm e nt would a c quie s c e to his torture or tha t he wa s una

ble to re loc ate and
avoid ha rm . 2 W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1). W e de ny his pe tition. Whe re the B IA a ffirm s the IJ while c iting its de c ision in M atte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872, 874 (B .I.A. 1994), a nd a dding its own a

na ly sis, we re v ie w both de c i sions toge the r a

nd re vie w the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings for substa n tia l

1 Pe titione r doe s not c onte st the a ge nc y ’ s findings with re spe c t to thela c k of a ne x us be twe e n his a lle ge d pe rse c ution a nd a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group— fa i ling in his brie fing be fore this c ourt to m e ntion e ithe r of his propose d soc ia l groups of “ y o ung m e n who re sist polic e c orruption” or “ fam ily ”

— and a ny c ha lle nge to the m is forfe i te d. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [W ] e ge ne ra lly will not ta

ke up a rgum e nts not ra ise d in a

n a lie n’ s ope ning brie f be fore this c ourt.” ). Ac c o rdingly , he fa ils to m e e t his burde n of proof for a sy lum and withholding. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th C ir. 2016). 2 Although pe t itione r a tte m pts to ra ise this issue

be fore this c ourt, the B IA spe c ific a lly

de c line d to a ddre ss the se findings by the IJ a nd inste a d pre dic ate d de nia l of pe titione r’ s C AT c la im sole ly on the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. 2e vide nc e . Se e Bondare nk o v . Holde r , 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th C ir. 2013); Me l k onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C ir. 2003). Unde r this sta nda rd,
we m ust uphold the

findings unle ss “ any re a sona ble a djudic ator would be
c om pe lle d to c onc lude to the c o ntra ry .” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); se e also IN S v
. Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). W he n a pply i ng this sta

n da rd of
re vie w, we m ay not re -we igh the e vide nc e , Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd m ay only re ve rse if “ n o re a s ona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould have re a c he d the a ge nc y ’ s re sult,” Tzompantzi-Salazar v

. Garland , 32 F.4th 696, 703 (9th C i r. 2022) (quoting Don v . Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th C ir. 2007)). As long a s the IJ ha s provide d spe c ific and c oge nt re a sons for finding the a pplic ant not c re dible , “ o n ly

the m ost e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s will justify ove rturning [the a ge nc y ’ s] a dve rse c re d ibility de t e rm inat ion.” Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting J ibril v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005)). The IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Although pe titione r c la im e d be fore the IJ tha

t he re c e ive d a

single de ath thre at from

the M a ra 18 ga ng for his re fusa l to pa

y a “ w a r ta x ,” the IJ pe rm issibly found pe titione r la c ke d

c re dibility

be c a u se of his prior sta

te m e nt to a

n im m igration offic e r in a

borde r pat

rol inte rvie w on August 24, 2016 tha t he ha d no fe ar of
3re turning to Hondura s a nd c am e to the Unite d State s only “ [t] o find work.” Se e id.
at 1047 (“ [W ] he n a

n inc onsiste nc y

is a t the he art of the c la im it doubtle ss is of gre at we i ght.” ). The IJ prope rly c onside re d a

n d re je c te d pe t itione r’ s e xpla

nation that he wa s ne rvous. Although pe titione r a s se rts tha

t the IJ e rre d in fa iling to honor his re c antation of his sta te m e nt to theim

m igration offic e r, an IJ is not
re quire d to inte rpre t

e vide nc e a s a

n a pplic ant a dvoc ate s. Se e Don , 476 F.3d a t 744. R athe r, the IJ m

ust only “ c onside r the pe titione r’ s e xpla nation for a

ny inc o nsiste nc y ” while e xc luding a ny “ utte rly trivia l inc onsiste nc y

tha t . . . [ha s] no be aring on a

pe titione r’ s ve ra c ity .” Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014) (bra c ke ts in original) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The IJ wa s be st positione d to c onside r the te stim ony in its c onte xt. And, theIJ provide d support from the re c o rd for his c onc lusion. As pe titione r wa s found to la c k c re dibility and pre s e nte d no a dditiona l inform ation in support of his c la i m s, the IJ a nd B IA did not
e rr in de te rm ining tha

t pe titione r fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proof. Se e W a ng v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding tha t a n a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation pre c lude s C AT prote c tion whe re the C AT c la im is “ba s e d on the
sam e sta te m e nts . . . tha

t the B IA de te rm ine d to be not c re d ible ” (quoting Singh v

. Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th C ir. 2015), ov e r rule d on othe r

grounds by

Alam v

. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133 (9th C i r. 2021) (e n ba nc ))).
4PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5