Mendoza-Carrillo v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Mendoza-Carrillo v. Holder

368 F. App'x 742

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 2010

Docket05-75021

StatusUnpublished

This text of 368 F. App'x 742 (Mendoza-Carrillo v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mendoza-Carrillo v. Holder, 368 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Arturo Mendoza-Carillo petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mendoza-Carillo’s claims for relief because he found Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the documents in evidence. We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004). The adverse credibility determination must be upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The evidence here does not compel a contrary result; rather it substantially supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The school certificate and Mendoza-Carillo’s own statements materially contradict each other and go to the heart of his claim for asylum. The same lack of credibility dooms his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

Mendoza-Carillo also challenges the IJ’s refusal to consider testimony from three proposed witnesses. We review the admission or rejection of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Wicker v. Or. ex rel. Bureau of Labor, 543 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2008). Even if the IJ abused his discretion by refusing to hear Mendoza-Caril- *743 lo’s witnesses, there was no prejudice. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). None of the witnesses could clarify the contradictions in Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony.

Accordingly, Mendoza-Carillo’s Petition for Review is DENIED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Arturo Mendoza-Carillo petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mendoza-Carillo’s claims for relief because he found Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the documents in evidence. We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004). The adverse credibility determination must be upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The evidence here does not compel a contrary result; rather it substantially supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The school certificate and Mendoza-Carillo’s own statements materially contradict each other and go to the heart of his claim for asylum. The same lack of credibility dooms his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

Mendoza-Carillo also challenges the IJ’s refusal to consider testimony from three proposed witnesses. We review the admission or rejection of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Wicker v. Or. ex rel. Bureau of Labor, 543 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2008). Even if the IJ abused his discretion by refusing to hear Mendoza-Caril- *743 lo’s witnesses, there was no prejudice. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). None of the witnesses could clarify the contradictions in Mendoza-Carillo’s testimony.

Accordingly, Mendoza-Carillo’s Petition for Review is DENIED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F. App'x 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-carrillo-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack