Court Opinion

ID: 9919528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 18:01:26.547807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:03.857277
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 18 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL HERNANDEZ-VASQUEZ                        No. 22-136

              Petitioner,                      Agency No. A206-270-955
                                   v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                   MEMORANDUM*
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted January 12, 2024**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges, and Robert S.
Lasnik, District Judge

      Angel Hernandez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. The

      *
             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 Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
                                         1
                                                                          22-136
Board adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility

finding and denial of Hernandez-Vasquez’s application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As the

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

         The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial

evidence. See Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). We will not

disturb an adverse credibility determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37

F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Here, both the IJ and the

BIA reviewed the totality of Hernandez-Vasquez’s circumstances in their decisions,

and the IJ identified specific instances in the record supporting the adverse

credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.

2010).

      The IJ highlighted that Hernandez-Vasquez “repeatedly testified falsely under

oath before immigration officers,” stating that “he was a citizen of Mexico and did

not fear any return to his country.” Hernandez-Vasquez does not dispute his

dishonesty but instead argues that these statements should not weigh against his

credibility as they were made while he was detained by immigration officials and in

a “position of extreme vulnerability” where he feared being deported. But when

                                          2
                                                                              22-136
asked about this false testimony during his removal hearing and if he had ever lied

to a United States immigration official, Hernandez-Vasquez answered, “[u]p to now,

I’ve never lied. I’ve never said a lie.” The IJ’s reliance on Hernandez-Vasquez’s

pattern of dishonesty to immigration officials, and then to the Court, is supported by

the record.

      Moreover, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding also relied on inconsistencies in

Hernandez-Vasquez’s testimony, including: 1) the date his friend Onofre was killed,

which changed from April to August 2013; 2) the extent of the police interrogation

after he reported a threat; and 3) whether a threatening call he received was from the

Salas family, who stated they murdered his friend for revenge, or, as he stated in his

asylum declaration, it was actually an unknown caller who threatened his life.

Hernandez-Vasquez argues that these inconsistencies are “de minimis” and that the

IJ erred in focusing on minor details that do not go to the heart of his claim.

However, under the REAL-ID Act statutory standard, an adverse credibility finding

may be based on inconsistencies “regardless of whether they go to the ‘heart’ of a

petitioner’s claim,” as long as they are considered under the totality of the

circumstances.    See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010)

(citations omitted).

      Here, Hernandez-Vasquez’s inconsistencies are directly relevant to his

asylum and CAT claims, as they bring into question his very reasons for fleeing

                                          3
                                                                              22-136
Guatemala and whether his persecution occurred with the consent or acquiescence

of the State.   See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).       Moreover, the inconsistencies in

Hernandez-Vasquez’s story specifically cited by the IJ corroborate his history of

misleading the United States government to obtain immigration benefits—further

supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at

1039–48. In light of this record, we find the BIA did not err as the IJ's adverse

credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

      Accordingly, Hernandez-Vasquez fails to carry his burden to show

entitlement to any relief on his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under CAT.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         4
                                                                             22-136