Vernardes Casildo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 22-901
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 8 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN VERNARDES CASILDO, AKA No. 22-901 Heber Rodolfo Waterhouse, Agency No. A213-111-770 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued & Submitted December 3, 2024 San Francisco, California

Before: COLLINS, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Marvin Vernardes Casildo, a native and citizen of Honduras,

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) (collectively, the “agency”) denial of his

application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. petition.1

1. Reinstatement of Removal Order. Pursuant to a stipulated order of

removal, Petitioner under the name of Vernardes confirmed that he was a citizen of

Honduras and agreed to removal to Honduras. Thereafter, Petitioner was removed

to Honduras in April 2018. Now Petitioner challenges his order of removal,

asserting that the agency had to make findings as to his citizenship and nationality.

We disagree.

A reinstated order of removal reinstates the original order of removal “from

its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(5). Here, Petitioner does not challenge the underlying removal

proceedings, nor does he challenge the reinstatement process. “At most, a grant of

withholding will only inhibit the order’s execution with respect to a particular

country.” Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 882 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 2017). However,

Petitioner would still be subject to removal to another country. Id. Accordingly,

the reinstated removal order is valid.

2. Adverse Credibility Determination. Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s adverse credibility finding. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings with

1 We deny Petitioner’s motion to remand (Dkt. 73). Even assuming that Petitioner did not forfeit this argument by failing to address it when he had an opportunity to submit a supplemental or substitute opening brief, the evidence contained in the Department of Homeland Security Administrative Record does not undermine the agency’s credibility finding.

2 22-901 respect to Petitioner’s use of multiple aliases to immigration officials and the

implausibility of Petitioner’s claim that he is unable to register his identity. The

agency provided “specific and cogent reasons” for its adverse credibility

determination. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016)

(citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

First, Petitioner used multiple aliases while he was in the United States.

Although Petitioner claims he used the aliases because of his lack of identification,

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that he obtained documents

in order to work in the United States. Furthermore, the agency permissibly

concluded that Petitioner failed adequately to explain why he had multiple aliases

and why he misrepresented himself to immigration officials. See Li v. Garland, 13

F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that submission of false information in

asylum application “is an appropriate factor to consider” in credibility

determinations); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“Admission of prior dishonesty can support an adverse credibility

determination.”).

Second, Petitioner claimed he was unable to register his identity in

Honduras. However, the BIA correctly noted that the record does not show that

Petitioner ever attempted to register under “his real name” and his biological

mother’s information. Moreover, the record supports the agency’s determination

3 22-901 that Petitioner possesses many of the documents necessary for him to register.

Notably, as the agency explained, the non-registration of birth document issued by

the National Registry of the People (RNP) did not preclude Petitioner from

obtaining his identification. Rather, it provided that Petitioner would have to

obtain his identification through “Reset by Omission,” as his expert recognized.

Petitioner also does not point to any document that he is unable to obtain but

instead claims that he is unable to register because neither of his parents can appear

in person. However, the record, including some of his corroborating documents,

does not support, much less compel, the conclusion that physical presence is

required.2

Petitioner does not point to evidence in the record that would compel a

conclusion that he cannot register himself in Honduras. Thus, the agency’s

implausibility finding is supported by the record. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th

822, 837 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Factual findings, including implausibility findings, ‘are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

the contrary.’” (citation omitted)). The adverse credibility determination is

2 Although one document purporting to outline Honduran law claims that a declaration of the parent is required, this statement is not consistent with other evidence and does not compel a conclusion different from the agency’s. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2014); cf. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that courts “are not in a position to second-guess the [agency’s] construction of the somewhat contradictory . . . report[s]”).

4 22-901 dispositive of Petitioner’s eligibility for withholding of removal. See Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).

3. CAT Relief. Petitioner only challenges the agency’s denial of CAT relief

on adverse credibility grounds. For the reasons outlined above, substantial

evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on the basis of the adverse

credibility finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).

The agency’s additional denial of CAT relief based on independent grounds is

forfeited. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

4. USCIS Guidelines. Petitioner argues that remand is necessary in light of

the newly issued guidelines for stateless individuals. We disagree. First, the

USCIS policy is not legally binding. See Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d

1111, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, even if it were, it is not applicable to

persons in removal proceedings and there is nothing in the language that would

preclude an IJ from making an adverse credibility finding. See

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-3-part-k-chapter-2 (“Officers may

only consider requesting a statelessness report where the noncitizen has a pending

application, petition, or other request for action with USCIS.”). Thus, there is no

basis for remand.

Petition DENIED.

5 22-901