Janvier v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3685
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANTZCY JANVIER; LOUISINA No. 24-3685 SAINT-JUSTE; ENZO JANVIER, Agency Nos. A220-895-101 Petitioners, A220-895-150 A220-895-151 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 20, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Frantzcy Janvier, a native and citizen of Haiti, and his wife Louisina Saint-

Juste and their minor child as derivative beneficiaries, petition for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an immigration

* 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). judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Janvier’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of

the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v.

Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We review agency

factual findings, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence. Ai Jun Zhi

v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). Such findings may be reversed

“only when ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.

Properly considering the totality of circumstances, the agency provided “specific

and cogent reasons” for its finding that Janvier lacked credibility, after giving him

the chance to explain those inconsistencies. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064

(9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ based the

adverse credibility finding on the ground that there was an inconsistency between

Janvier’s oral testimony and his written declaration and supporting documents

about his grandfather’s name. The IJ found that because this inconsistency was

“about the very person who is the subject and the reason why [Janvier] claims he

was being harmed and why he claims his entire family was harmed,” it was both

2 24-3685 material and important, and was “fatal” to his credibility. And although the IJ gave

Janvier an opportunity to explain the inconsistency, the IJ found the explanation

did not save his credibility. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 (9th

Cir. 2010) (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the

petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is

of great weight.”).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on the

ground that Janvier has not demonstrated “that it is more likely than not that [he]

will face a particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.” Park v. Garland, 72

F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). He has

not demonstrated how the country conditions evidence regarding violence in Haiti

compels the conclusion that he would more likely than not face torture if he returns

to Haiti.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-3685