Court Opinion

ID: 9556437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 14:00:30.802256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:21.457081
License: Public Domain

21-6126
     Marmolejo Silva v. Garland
                                                                              BIA
                                                                         Ruehle, IJ
                                                                      A205 152 875
                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                   SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 17th day of August, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 9            RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10            MYRNA PÉREZ,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   FRANCISCO MARMOLEJO SILVA,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                   21-6126
18                                                          NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                    Matthew L. Kolken, Kolken &
25                                      Kolken, Buffalo, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                      Attorney General; Anna Juarez,
 1                                   Senior Litigation Counsel; Kathryn
 2                                   M. McKinney, Attorney, Office of
 3                                   Immigration Litigation, United
 4                                   States Department of Justice,
 5                                   Washington, DC.

 6       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 9   is DENIED.

10       Petitioner      Francisco    Marmolejo     Silva,   a     native      and

11   citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a February 8, 2021 decision

12   of the BIA affirming a May 22, 2018 decision of an Immigration

13   Judge   (“IJ”),    which   denied     his   application     for    asylum,

14   withholding   of    removal,    and   relief   under    the     Convention

15   Against Torture (“CAT”).         In re Francisco Marmolejo Silva,

16   No. A 205 152 875 (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2021), aff’g No. A 205 152

17   875 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo May 22, 2018).         We assume the parties’

18   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19       In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for

20   summary   denial    of   Marmolejo    Siva’s   petition     for    review.

21   Summary denial is a “rare exception to the completion of the

22   appeal process” and “is available only if an appeal is truly

23   frivolous.”   United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13 (2d Cir.

24   2010)   (internal    quotation      marks   omitted).       A     claim   is
                                          2
 1   frivolous if it based on an “inarguable legal conclusion” or

 2   “fanciful factual allegation.”         Pillay v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 14,

 3   16 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

 4   325 (1989)).      That said, Marmolejo Silva has filed his brief,

 5   so rather than determining whether the petition meets the

 6   standard    for   frivolousness,    we   construe the Government’s

 7   motion for summary denial as its brief and deny the petition

 8   on its merits.

 9          Marmolejo Silva argues that the agency erred in denying

10   his application for asylum as untimely.         He also argues that

11   the agency erred in denying asylum, withholding of removal,

12   and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility determination

13   and lack of corroboration.         Marmolejo Silva alleges that he

14   was threatened, and other family members were killed or

15   disappeared, because he helped extradite a cartel member who

16   had killed his brother in 2008.

17     I.     Asylum

18          An applicant is barred from asylum absent “clear and

19   convincing    evidence   that   the    application   has   been   filed

20   within 1 year after the date of . . . arrival in the United

21   States” or, as relevant here, within a reasonable time of

                                        3
 1   “changed      circumstances       which      materially    affect      the

 2   applicant’s        eligibility      for      asylum.”       8       U.S.C.

 3   § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D).       Our jurisdiction to review the denial

 4   of   an   asylum   claim   as    untimely,    including   the   changed-

 5   circumstances analysis, is limited to constitutional claims

 6   and questions of law.           Id. § 1158(a)(3); Barco-Sandoval v.

 7   Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40–41 (2d Cir. 2007) (claim must be

 8   “colorable” to involve this Court’s jurisdiction).

 9        Here, we do not have jurisdiction over Marmolejo Silva’s

10   challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum as time-barred.

11   Marmolejo Silva asserts that the IJ failed to consider 2016

12   and 2018 U.S. Department of State Travel Advisories that

13   indicated increasing violence in his home state in Mexico.

14   But this argument does not raise a colorable question of law

15   because the agency is not required to “expressly parse or

16   refute on the record each individual argument or piece of

17   evidence that a petitioner offers.”            Quituizaca v. Garland,

18   52 F.4th 103, 115 (2d Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

19   omitted).      The    Travel     Advisories    do   not   “compellingly

20   suggest” that the agency ignored changes in conditions, as

21   the advisories do not describe conditions in Mexico, identify

                                          4
 1   changes in conditions, or explain why the travel warnings or

 2   restrictions changed from 2016 to 2018.               Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.

 3   Dep’t of Just., 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006).

 4        II. Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief

 5          As to Marmolejo Silva’s claims for withholding of removal

 6   and CAT relief, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

 7   adverse credibility determination.              We review the agency’s

 8   adverse     credibility       determination   “under        the   substantial

 9   evidence standard.”           Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67,

10   76    (2d   Cir.   2018).        “Considering    the    totality      of   the

11   circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may

12   base a credibility determination on the . . . consistency

13   between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements

14   (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering

15   the circumstances under which the statements were made) . . .

16   without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or

17   falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any

18   other relevant factor.”          8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).            “We

19   defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from

20   the    totality    of   the    circumstances,    it    is    plain that     no

21   reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

                                           5
 1   ruling.”       Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.

 2   2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.

 3          Here, the IJ reasonably relied on two inconsistencies

 4   between Marmolejo Silva’s testimony and written statements

 5   about the nature of the threats he received and whether he

 6   reported them to the police.           See Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d

 7   137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency

 8   might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled

 9   to find him credible.            Multiple inconsistencies would so

10   preclude even more forcefully.”).                Marmolejo Silva’s written

11   statement asserted that people threatened him over the phone

12   and in person at his work, but he testified that he only

13   received threats by phone.             See Certified Admin. Record at

14   209,    241–42,     303.    Further,         Marmolejo      Silva’s   written

15   statement asserted that he reported threats to the police and

16   they told him they could not help him, but he testified that

17   he did not call the police to report any threats.                     Id. at

18   242,    303.      The   agency   was       not   required    to   credit   his

19   explanation that he reported the threats in person, given

20   that he also explained that he did not call the police because

21   he was afraid—not that he went in person.                     See Majidi v.

                                            6
 1   Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must

 2   do     more   than       offer   a    plausible   explanation   for    his

 3   inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

 4   that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit

 5   his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 1

 6          Moreover,     a    lack   of    corroboration   resolving      these

 7   inconsistencies or confirming other aspects of the claim

 8   bolsters      the    adverse     credibility      determination.        “An

 9   applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

10   bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in

11   general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony

12   that has already been called into question.”               Biao Yang v.

13   Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).             Here, Marmolejo

14   Silva failed to corroborate his brother’s membership in the

15   National Guard or his own involvement in extraditing his

16   brother’s killer to Mexico.

     1 Wedo not rely on the IJ’s finding that Marmolejo Silva omitted
     details of his brother’s death from his testimony at the hearing
     because he was not questioned regarding those details. See Ming
     Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]here the
     perceived incongruities . . . are not plainly obvious, an IJ cannot
     rely on them . . . without first identifying the alleged
     inconsistencies for the applicant and giving the applicant an
     opportunity to address them.”).
                                             7
 1       Together with the aforementioned inconsistencies, this

 2   lack of corroboration provides substantial evidence for the

 3   adverse credibility determination, and necessitates denial of

 4   Marmolejo Silva’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT

 5   protection, which relied on the same factual predicates.   See

 6   Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444

 7   F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

 8       For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion for

 9   summary denial is construed as its brief, and the petition

10   for review is DENIED.   All pending motions and applications

11   are DENIED and stays VACATED.

12                               FOR THE COURT:
13                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
14                               Clerk of Court
15

                                     8