Francisco Solis v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2022
• Docket: 21-3804
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3804 ___________________________

Francisco Vicente Solis

Petitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

Respondent ____________

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

Submitted: July 26, 2022 Filed: July 29, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Francisco Vicente Solis petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. The BIA denied Solis’s request for termination of the proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and dismissed his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on an adverse credibility determination. Solis’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See Yu An Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). The immigration judge provided specific, cogent reasons for the credibility determination, including that Solis failed to adequately explain inconsistencies in his statements or provide sufficient corroborating evidence. See Shazi v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 441, 450-51 (8th Cir. 2021); Kegeh v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 990, 995-97 (8th Cir. 2017); Ezeagwu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 836, 839-40 (8th Cir. 2008). This court discerns no error in the weight afforded to the asylum officer’s credible-fear record. See Chavez-Castillo v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1081, 1083-84, 1085 (8th Cir. 2014); see also Diallo v. Sessions, 697 Fed. Appx. 472, 473 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Because Solis based his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims on the same discredited testimony, the adverse credibility determination disposed of his claims. See Kegeh, 865 F.3d at 997.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-