Cenorbe v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 14, 2026
• Docket: 25-3994
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGALIE CENORBE; WADNER No. 25-3994 RAPHAEL; W. R.-C., Agency Nos. A209-158-068 Petitioners, A220-579-985 A220-562-779 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 10, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.***

Magalie Cenorbe (Cenorbe) and her partner Wadner Raphael (Raphael),

* 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. natives and citizens of Haiti and Chile,1 petition for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 We deny

the petition.

“We review the agency’s factual findings, including credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence. . . .” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291,

1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano3

and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s

and the BIA’s decisions. . . .” Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 663, 666 (9th Cir.

2024) (citation omitted).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determinations. Cenorbe initially testified that she met her abusive ex-partner in

2015. Cenorbe testified that she left him permanently on December 20, 2016.

However, when confronted with a Record of Sworn Statement documenting a

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer’s interview with Cenorbe

1 Petitioners challenge the denial of relief solely as to Haiti. 2 Each of the petitioners filed separate petitions. Nevertheless, both Raphael and their minor child, W.R.-C., also have derivative claims for asylum as Cenorbe’s beneficiaries. 3 Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994).

2 25-3994 following her October 2016 entry into the United States, Cenorbe drastically

changed her testimony. Cenorbe explained that she first lived with her ex-partner

in 2003, had a child with him, and fled Haiti later that year because she didn’t want

to be with him. She next encountered her ex-partner when she was deported to

Haiti following her unlawful entry into the United States in 2016. Cenorbe

testified that she told the DHS officer in 2016 that she did not fear return to Haiti

because the severe incidents of abuse underlying her asylum claim occurred

following her return to Haiti in December 2016 and leaving again in February

2017.

The agency may “afford substantial weight to inconsistencies that bear

directly on [a petitioner’s] claim of persecution,” including inconsistencies about a

“crucial date.” Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir.

2021) (per curiam) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted).

Against this significant inconsistency, the agency was not compelled to find

Cenorbe credible, especially when considering other indicia of unreliability the IJ

identified, such as being unresponsive to questions, engaging in long pauses when

faced with conflicting evidence, and the omission from her asylum application of

her 2016 entry into the United States. See id. (concluding that an adverse

credibility determination was supported by demeanor findings); see also Uc

Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 938 (9th Cir. 2025) (“We regularly credit

3 25-3994 demeanor findings based on hesitation and lengthy pauses during key

questioning. . . .”) (citations omitted).

Raphael similarly struggled with the “crucial date” of the incident

underlying his separate asylum claim. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 11 F.4th at 1093. He

described an incident of a man who attacked his family at their house on the 5th,

7th, 10th, and 12th of September 2012.4 But during cross-examination, Raphael

testified that there were attacks each day from the 5th through the 10th. And when

confronted with the police report stating that the attacks occurred in November

rather than September of 2012, Raphael—after a long pause—explained, “when it

comes, like, to the month -- so, I do not know. So -- but it did happen in 2012.”

These inconsistencies around a crucial date, combined with Raphael’s long pause

when confronted with conflicting documents, constituted substantial evidence to

support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id.

The adverse credibility determinations are fatal to Cenorbe’s and Raphael’s

claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958

F.3d 887, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2020).5

2. Absent credible testimony, the remaining record does not compel a grant

4 At one point Raphael also mentioned November 5th and “the 12th.” 5 Because the minor petitioner’s claims are based on the same facts as her mother’s claims, we do not address those claims separately.

4 25-3994 of CAT relief. Cenorbe and Raphael submitted country conditions evidence

describing generalized violence and criminality in Haiti. However, they have

“presented no actual, individualized evidence that [they] would be tortured by or

with the acquiescence of the [Haitian] government if [they] were removed to

[Haiti].” Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2025). Accordingly,

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cenorbe and Raphael

were not entitled to CAT relief. See id.

PETITION DENIED.6

6 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. # 2) is otherwise denied.

5 25-3994