Court Opinion

ID: 9378554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 20:00:30.780197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.039484
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 10 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Manuel Angel Santiago-Mateo,                    No. 21-632

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A200-693-128

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 8, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       Miguel Angel Santiago-Mateo petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (IJ) decision and orders on remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.

       *
            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).
      1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s

adverse credibility determination. First, while Santiago-Mateo argues that the

BIA erred in relying on the inconsistency between his application for

cancellation of removal and his subsequent testimony about the number of times

he entered the United States, the agency appropriately relied on the fact that

Santiago-Mateo had an opportunity to review the application and did not make

any corrections. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960–61 (9th Cir. 2021). The

inconsistency is not, as Santiago-Mateo argues, “a mere trivial error such as a

misspelling,” but “bears directly” on his claim for relief. See Manes v. Sessions,

875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017).

      Second, the BIA did not err in construing Santiago-Mateo’s conflicting

testimony about whether he presented documents at the border as an

inconsistency. When DHS counsel asked Santiago-Mateo about this conflict,

Santiago-Mateo did not offer an explanation: instead, he denied his previous

testimony. A petitioner’s “failure of memory” is a “specific and cogent” reason

to reject an explanation for an inconsistency. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,

1088–90 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the IJ did not have to provide Santiago-

Mateo with additional opportunities to explain. Id. Because there was no error,

Santiago-Mateo’s due process argument likewise fails. See Rodriguez-Jimenez

v. Garland, 20 F.4th 434, 440 (9th Cir. 2021) (overruled on other grounds by

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).

                                        2                                      21-632
      2. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Santiago-Mateo’s

motion to withdraw his admission of removability made through counsel.

Absent egregious circumstances, an attorney’s admission is binding on a

petitioner when the admission is 1) distinct, 2) formal, 3) made by an attorney

acting in his professional capacity, and 4) a tactical decision. Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 830 (9th Cir. 2011). Santiago-Mateo does

not dispute that the first three requirements are met, and he did not proffer any

evidence to rebut the presumption that the decision to concede removability was

tactical. See id. at 831. Santiago-Mateo has not met his burden to demonstrate

any of the “egregious circumstances”— unjust results, a false admission, or

ineffective assistance of counsel—that can relieve a petitioner from his

attorney’s admissions. See id. at 831–32.

      Finally, Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285 (BIA 2010), was not an

intervening change in law that affected Santiago-Mateo’s eligibility for relief

because that case was decided several months before the Notice to Appear

issued and did not make new law. See Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092, 1100

n.7 (9th Cir. 2010).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                    21-632