Erick Aranda-Chinchilla v. William Barr
This text of Erick Aranda-Chinchilla v. William Barr (Erick Aranda-Chinchilla v. William Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0348n.06
No. 18-4094 FILED Jul 10, 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ERICK JONATAN ARANDA-CHINCHILLA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) )
Before: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Erick Aranda-Chinchilla petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny his petition.
In March 2016, Aranda-Chinchilla, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without
inspection, near Hidalgo, Texas. Border-patrol officers detained and interviewed him the same
day. During that interview, Aranda-Chinchilla said that he came to the United States to visit family
in Ohio and that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Honduras. The government
thereafter charged Aranda-Chinchilla with removability. Aranda-Chinchilla conceded that he was
removable, but applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b), withholding of removal under
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
In his applications and at a hearing, Aranda-Chinchilla alleged that he had witnessed a group of No. 18-4094, Aranda-Chinchilla v. Barr
gang members committing a robbery, that the group assumed he had reported the crime, and that
the group later threatened him. The immigration judge denied Aranda-Chinchilla’s applications,
finding among other things that he was not credible. The Board affirmed. This petition for review
followed.
The Board adopted and supplemented the IJ’s decision, so we review both the Board’s and
the IJ’s decisions. See Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145, 1149 (6th Cir. 2010). We review
legal questions de novo and uphold the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724
F.3d 667, 670 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
As an initial matter, Aranda-Chinchilla argues that the agency lacked jurisdiction to
institute removal proceedings against him, because (he says) the agency’s notice to appear was
defective under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). But
we have already rejected this argument. See Santos-Santos v. Barr, 917 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir.
2019).
As for the merits, Aranda-Chinchilla argues that the agency lacked substantial evidence to
find that he was not credible. The agency based that finding on numerous inconsistencies in
Aranda-Chinchilla’s testimony. For example, Aranda-Chinchilla testified that he feared
persecution if he returned to Honduras; but in an earlier sworn statement to a border-patrol agent,
he said that he did not fear persecution. At the hearing before the IJ, Aranda-Chinchilla sought to
explain this inconsistency by saying that he had been nervous during the interview with the border-
patrol agent, but the agency did not credit that explanation. Aranda-Chinchilla also testified that
gang members threatened to kill him; but in an affidavit that he submitted with his applications he
did not mention any death threat. The agency thus found that, based on the “totality of the
-2- No. 18-4094, Aranda-Chinchilla v. Barr
circumstances,” Aranda-Chinchilla was not credible. See El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250, 256
(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Aranda-Chinchilla identifies no evidence
that would compel a “reasonable adjudicator” to conclude to the contrary. See id. (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We therefore have no basis to set aside the agency’s denial of relief.
The petition for review is denied.
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Erick Aranda-Chinchilla v. William Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erick-aranda-chinchilla-v-william-barr-ca6-2019.