Court Opinion

ID: 9909553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 18:01:00.029725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:39.370385
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARWIN CORADO TOVAR,                            No.    21-70671

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A206-365-589

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 8, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BEA, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Marwin Corado Tovar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order which affirmed,

without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

      *
             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).
        We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA

summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(e)(4), we ‘review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.’”

Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ren v. Holder, 648

F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011)). We review an adverse credibility finding under

the substantial evidence standard, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.

2010), and must uphold it unless the evidence compels a contrary result, Tekle v.

Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition.1

        Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Petitioner was not a

credible witness. The IJ highlighted “specific and cogent reasons” for concluding

that Petitioner was incredible. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2010).

        The IJ first determined that Petitioner’s in-court testimony as to the extent of

the injuries he suffered when he was assertedly beaten in El Salvador by members

of the 18th Street Gang contradicted (1) his prior statement to the asylum officer

who conducted his credible fear interview, (2) his own handwritten declaration, and

(3) his asylum application. These significant inconsistencies bore on Petitioner’s

veracity. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–44. The IJ also observed that Petitioner

attempted to fabricate an explanation for these discrepancies based on attorney error,

which fabrication was exposed on cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at

1
    We deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1).

                                            2
1044 (“[T]he petitioner’s explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be

considered in weighing credibility.”). “[W]hen inconsistencies that weaken a claim

for asylum are accompanied by other indications of dishonesty-such as a pattern of

clear and pervasive inconsistency or contradiction-an adverse credibility

determination may be supported by substantial evidence.” Kaur v. Gonzales, 418

F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). Next, the IJ concluded that Petitioner tried to

minimize his criminal history in the United States, viz., charges for rape by force or

fear, false imprisonment, and assault with a deadly weapon. Lastly, the IJ properly

considered Petitioner’s emotionlessness when he testified about his brother’s

murder. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263–64 (9th Cir. 2017) (per

curiam). Based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, Petitioner failed to carry his

burden of proving eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See Ling

Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

      The IJ properly determined that, because Petitioner’s claim for CAT relief was

based on the same factual predicate as his asylum and withholding of removal

claims, the adverse credibility finding supported denial of all claims. See Yali Wang

v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).

      DENIED.

                                          3