Sanchez-Siquina v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-1037
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ISAIAS SANCHEZ- No. 22-1037 SIQUINA; JULIANA DALILA LOPEZ- Agency Nos. YAC DE SANCHEZ; BRYAN ISAIAS A209-121-785 SANCHEZ-LOPEZ; JESSICA ARACELY A216-579-208 SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, A216-579-209 A216-579-210 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 12, 2023** Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.***

Petitioners Jose Isaias Sanchez-Siquina, Juliana Dalia Lopez-Yac de

* 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 Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Sanchez, and their two minor children,1 natives and citizens of Guatemala,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of

their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of

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

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

We review the BIA’s factual findings, including credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d

733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11

F.4th 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2021). Because the BIA, citing Matter of Burbano,

20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), adopted and affirmed that IJ’s decision with

respect to asylum, withholding, and relief under CAT, we review the IJ’s

decision on those issues as if it were the BIA’s. Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d

1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009).

1. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial

evidence. Under the REAL ID Act, “[i]nconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to

the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility

determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The BIA need only “provide ‘specific

and cogent reasons’ in support of an adverse credibility determination.”

1 Jose Isaias Sanchez-Siquina is lead applicant, Juliana Dalia Lopez-Yac de Sanchez is his wife and derivative applicant, and their two minor children are derivative applicants. They collectively appeal the BIA’s dismissal.

2 Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009). In this case, the IJ

provided “specific and cogent” reasons for finding Petitioners not credible.

Specifically, the IJ cited Petitioners’ inconsistent and confusing testimony

regarding the details of the threats and the kidnapping, including how the

extortion occurred and when lead Petitioner was kidnapped.

2. The adverse credibility finding is sufficient to support a denial of

asylum and withholding of removal. Although the adverse credibility finding is

not necessarily fatal to Petitioners’ CAT claim, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d

924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020), the IJ and BIA found that the country conditions

report and letter from Petitioner’s parents did not establish a more-likely-than-

not probability of torture to Petitioners themselves. The record does not compel

a contrary conclusion, and thus the denial of CAT relief is also supported by

substantial evidence.

3. Petitioners’ argument that the BIA did not consider the documentary

evidence supporting Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding is not

supported by the record. The IJ noted that it was “mindful that the parents of the

lead respondent wrote a brief letter.” It went on to explain why the letter did not

“serve to cure the deficiencies” in Petitioners’ testimonies. Ibid.

4. The BIA did not err by not giving Petitioners notice to provide

corroborating evidence. When an IJ gives a petitioner the opportunity to explain

testimony and still finds that – after considering the totality of the circumstances

and all relevant evidence – the petitioner is not credible, the IJ has “no

3 obligation to give [the petitioner] an additional opportunity to bolster her case

by submitting further evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009

(9th Cir. 2017). Here, the IJ provided Petitioners the opportunity to explain their

inconsistencies and considered the totality of the circumstances and record. See

also Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927 (“Because the IJ found Mukulumbutu’s

testimony not credible, the IJ was not required to give Mukulumbutu notice and

an opportunity to provide additional corroborating evidence.”).

PETITION DENIED.