Court Opinion

ID: 9396443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 17:01:45.658577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.976691
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WISLY CALIXTE; et al.,                          No.    21-70540

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A209-760-568
                                                                  A209-760-539
 v.                                                               A209-760-540

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                        MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Wisly Calixte (“Calixte”) and two family members, natives and citizens of

Haiti,1 petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

      *
             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
             Calixte’s daughter’s Form I-589, application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture reflects that she
was born in Brazil and may be a dual citizen of Haiti and Brazil.
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying

the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de

novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Calixte’s testimony and record evidence as to the

reason Calixte left Haiti and whether Calixte was blindfolded at the time he was

initially kidnapped, and nonresponsive testimony as to whether Calixte has spoken

to his parents since leaving Haiti. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040, 1045

(inconsistencies and the responsiveness of an applicant may be considered in

assessing credibility under the totality of the circumstances); see also

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]here were sufficient

indicia of reliability to permit the BIA and us to consider” a border interview

because it was “conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the

questions asked, and transcribed either by a French-speaking officer or with the aid

of an interpreter.” (citation omitted)). Calixte’s explanations do not compel a

                                          2                                   21-70540
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did

not present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish their eligibility

for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s

documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony or

independently support claim).

      The BIA did not err in declining to address the IJ’s determination that

petitioners were firmly resettled in Brazil, see Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,

538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues

unnecessary to the results they reach), and we do not reach petitioners’ contentions

as to the merits of the firm resettlement bar because the BIA did not deny relief on

this ground, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon

by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioners’ claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence in the record that

                                          3                                       21-70540
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured in

Haiti. See id. at 1157.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         4                                   21-70540