Court Opinion

ID: 9918348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 18:00:55.247664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:38.790696
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 12 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABRAHAM VEGA,                                   No. 22-156
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A073-923-221
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted January 10, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.***

      Abraham Vega petitions for review of an order from the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ)

      *
             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).
      ***
             The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, sitting by designation.
denying his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.1

See Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1054 (9th Cir. 2023). We deny the

petition.

        1. “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for

clear error and ‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not

merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’ we ‘look to the IJ’s . . . decision as a guide

to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.’” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th

Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)).

“Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, we review the BIA’s

credibility determination for substantial evidence.” Barseghyan v. Garland, 39

F.4th 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153

(9th Cir. 2021)). Under this “highly deferential” standard, the agency’s factual

findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217–18 (9th

Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020)); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B).

        The BIA and IJ determined that Vega was not credible due to Vega’s

demeanor during his testimony, and numerous inconsistencies in his testimony,

1
    The Government has withdrawn its argument that we lack jurisdiction.

                                         2                                     22-156
and omissions from his declaration and interview with an asylum officer regarding

the incident during which he claimed he was tortured. Among other inconsistencies

and omissions, Vega failed to mention in his declaration that he had a bag over his

head during the claimed torture, inconsistently characterized his relationship with

the person he claimed his torturers were trying to find, and inconsistently described

his medical treatment afterward. The agency also noted that Vega testified that he

was beaten by police in Tijuana, even though he told an asylum officer that he

encountered no violence or difficulties with police in Tijuana.

      The inconsistencies and omissions in Vega’s testimony are sufficient to

support the agency’s conclusion that the testimony was not credible. See Li v.

Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021). And the agency was not required to

credit Vega’s assertion that some of these issues were the fault of a person who

helped him prepare his declaration. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th

Cir. 2011). Additionally, we owe “special deference” to the IJ’s determination that

Vega’s demeanor suggested dishonesty—particularly where, as here, the IJ

identified “‘specific instances’ in the record that reflect suspect demeanor.” Dong

v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1298 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010)).

      Other than his declarations and testimony, Vega’s applications for

withholding of removal and CAT protection rest only on general country-

                                        3                                    22-156
conditions evidence that the Mexican government and organized crime

organizations sometimes engage in violence and torture. But this evidence does not

compel the conclusion that Vega faces any particularized risk of persecution or

torture within Mexico. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927–28 (9th Cir.

2020). Accordingly, the agency appropriately rejected Vega’s claims.

      2. Vega argues that the IJ violated his due process right to a reasoned

decision by failing to make an express finding regarding whether Vega had been

tortured. The IJ, however, provided a thorough decision explaining why Vega’s

testimony and declaration were not credible, and why the remaining evidence he

submitted was not sufficient to support his claims. This explanation satisfied the

agency’s obligation to provide a reasoned decision. Cf. Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th

965, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2023).

      DENIED.

                                        4                                       22-156