Court Opinion

ID: 9402524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 22:00:57.801683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.526394
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUN 15 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONY MAURICIO ESTRADA                           No. 21-577
SANCHEZ,                                        Agency No.
                                                A075-899-609
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted June 8, 2023 **
                              Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge.***

      Rony Mauricio Estrada Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,

      *
            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 Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Mr. Estrada’s

petition for review.

      This court reviews denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

relief for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.

2017). The court also reviews factual findings, including adverse credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence. Id. We must uphold the BIA’s decision

“unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.” Id. (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)).

      1.     First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility

determination. The BIA considered “the totality of the circumstances” and gave

“specific and cogent reasons” for its adverse credibility finding, and the record

does not compel a different conclusion. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040,

1042 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based

on several non-trivial inconsistencies within Mr. Estrada’s testimony and

between his testimony and documentary evidence.

      2.     Second, even if Mr. Estrada were deemed credible, substantial

evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that he was ineligible for asylum and

withholding of removal because he failed to establish past persecution or a well-

founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A).

      3.     Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Mr.

                                       2
Estrada is ineligible for CAT relief. A non-credible petitioner can establish

eligibility for CAT relief if the other evidence in the record compels the

conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at

1048 (“An adverse credibility determination is not necessarily a death knell to

CAT protection . . . . But . . . to reverse the BIA’s decision denying CAT

protection, we would have to find that the reports alone compelled the conclusion

that the petitioner is more likely than not to be tortured.”) (cleaned up); see also

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Mr. Estrada did not establish that it is more likely than

not that the Honduran government would acquiesce in his torture. Garcia-Milian

v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),

1208.18(a)(1). To the contrary, the country reports describe the Honduran

government’s efforts to combat violence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d

829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that “inability to bring the criminals to justice”

and “general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent

crime will not suffice to show acquiescence”).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         3