Court Opinion

ID: 9385847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 15:00:23.349802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.512434
License: Public Domain

21-6045
     Villacorta v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                             Conroy, IJ
                                                                           A206 231 372
                             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 for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of April, two thousand
 4   twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7              DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
 8                    Chief Judge,
 9              BETH ROBINSON,
10              ALISON J. NATHAN,
11                    Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13   JULIO CESAR VILLACORTA
14   INOCENTE,
15              Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                        21-6045
18                                                               NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21              Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                     Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, NY.
 2
 3   FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney
 4                                       General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director;
 5                                       Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation
 6                                       Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
 7                                       United States Department of Justice,
 8                                       Washington, DC.

 9         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

10   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

11   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

12         Petitioner Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente (“Villacorta”), a native and citizen

13   of El Salvador, seeks review of a January 8, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a

14   December 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his

15   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

16   Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente, No. A 206 231 372

17   (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 2021), aff’g No. A 206 231 372 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 13, 2018). We

18   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19         We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of

20   completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.

21   2006). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence.

22   See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative

                                              2
 1   findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

 2   compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 3      A. Jurisdiction

 4         Villacorta relies on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), to argue that the

 5   IJ did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to

 6   appear (“NTA”) omitted the time and date of his hearing.             This argument is

 7   foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019), which held

 8   that a defective NTA does not “void jurisdiction in cases in which an NTA omits a

 9   hearing time or place.” See also Chery v. Garland, 16 F.4th 980, 986–87 (2d Cir. 2021)

10   (upholding Banegas Gomez after Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)). The

11   omitted information from the NTA did not deprive the agency of jurisdiction

12   because Villacorta received hearing notices and attended his hearings. See Chery,

13   16 F.4th at 986–87; Banegas-Gomez, 922 F.3d at 112.

14      B. Adverse Credibility Determination

15         “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” an IJ “may base a credibility

16   determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral

17   statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the

18   circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of

19   each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of
                                                3
 1   record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard

 2   to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the

 3   applicant’s claim.”    8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).    “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

 4   credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain

 5   that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”

 6   Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891

 7   F.3d   at   76.     Substantial   evidence    supports    the   adverse   credibility

 8   determination.

 9          The IJ reasonably relied on Villacorta’s inconsistent statements at his border

10   interview and hearing. We have examined the interview record and conclude

11   that it represents a “sufficiently accurate record” to merit consideration in

12   determining credibility because it was conducted in Spanish, the record reflects

13   that Villacorta understood the questions asked, and the questions and his

14   responses appear to be transcribed verbatim. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

15   169, 179–80 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 396 (2d

16   Cir. 2005). Villacorta does not challenge the agency’s determination that the

17   interview record was sufficiently reliable.

18          Villacorta instead argues that there is no inconsistency. That contention is

19   refuted by the record. At the IJ hearing, Villacorta testified that gang members
                                               4
 1   assaulted and threatened to kill him, and that he decided to come to the United

 2   States after the threats evolved to include threats against his family. In contrast,

 3   at the border interview, he said that he came to the United States to find work and

 4   planned to stay for five years. Villacorta was asked if he feared persecution or

 5   torture, if he would be harmed in El Salvador, and if he had anything else he would

 6   like to add.     He replied “no” to all of these questions, despite having been

 7   instructed that the interview might be his only chance to identify a fear or concern

 8   about being removed. Villacorta did not offer explanations that resolved this

 9   inconsistency.

10         Moreover, the adverse credibility determination is bolstered by the lack of

11   corroboration. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

12   bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

13   applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

14   question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Villacorta

15   provided two letters to support his application, one from his church in El Salvador

16   and one from his father. But neither letter mentions that Villacorta fled because

17   of gang recruitment or that he was assaulted or threatened.

18         In sum, the inconsistency about the basis for the claim and the lack of any

19   corroboration     provide   substantial   evidence   for   the   adverse   credibility
                                               5
 1   determination. See Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven

 2   a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was

 3   compelled to find him credible.”); Biao Yang, 496 F.3d at 273. We do not reach his

 4   additional arguments because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive

 5   of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

 6   148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

 7         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

 8   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

 9                                         FOR THE COURT:
10                                         Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
11                                         Clerk of Court

                                             6