Court Opinion

ID: 9363894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:00:36.32203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.750694
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

FRANCISCO ANDERSON ROMERO-                      No.    18-71506
URRUTIA,
                                                Agency No. A206-798-964
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before:      WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Francisco Anderson Romero-Urrutia, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the

standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act.

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo

the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the

extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes

and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020).

We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding social distinction. Id.

      Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on

an omission in Romero-Urrutia’s declaration regarding his hand injury, internal

inconsistencies in Romero-Urrutia’s testimony and inconsistencies between his

testimony and documentary evidence regarding Luis’s injuries and disappearance,

and his demeanor during his testimony regarding his brother. See Shrestha, 590

F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances); see also Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th

Cir. 2021) (“BIA and IJ did not err in relying on [petitioner’s] evasive and

unresponsive demeanor while testifying after providing examples of his

evasiveness.”). Romero-Urrutia’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony, in this case, Romero-Urrutia’s asylum and

                                          2                                      18-71506
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).

      Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Romero-Urrutia

failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See Conde

Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1241-42 at 1243 (petitioner’s proposed social group was not

cognizable because of the absence of society-specific evidence of social

distinction). As such, the BIA did not err in concluding that Romero-Urrutia did

not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v.

Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a

particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1)

composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined

with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))).

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Romero-Urrutia’s remaining

contentions as to asylum and withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,

371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide

issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

      Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because

Romero-Urrutia’s claim was based on the same testimony found not credible, and

Romero-Urrutia does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

                                           3                                      18-71506
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in El Salvador. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         4                                   18-71506