Villacorta v. Garland
This text of Villacorta v. Garland (Villacorta v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
21-6045 Villacorta v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 231 372 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of April, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 JULIO CESAR VILLACORTA 14 INOCENTE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6045 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; 5 Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC.
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente (“Villacorta”), a native and citizen
13 of El Salvador, seeks review of a January 8, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a
14 December 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his
15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente, No. A 206 231 372
17 (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 2021), aff’g No. A 206 231 372 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 13, 2018). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
21 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence.
22 See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative
2 1 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
3 A. Jurisdiction
4 Villacorta relies on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), to argue that the
5 IJ did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to
6 appear (“NTA”) omitted the time and date of his hearing. This argument is
7 foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019), which held
8 that a defective NTA does not “void jurisdiction in cases in which an NTA omits a
9 hearing time or place.” See also Chery v. Garland, 16 F.4th 980, 986–87 (2d Cir. 2021)
10 (upholding Banegas Gomez after Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)). The
11 omitted information from the NTA did not deprive the agency of jurisdiction
12 because Villacorta received hearing notices and attended his hearings. See Chery,
13 16 F.4th at 986–87; Banegas-Gomez, 922 F.3d at 112.
14 B. Adverse Credibility Determination
15 “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” an IJ “may base a credibility
16 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral
17 statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the
18 circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of
19 each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of 3 1 record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard
2 to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the
3 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
4 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain
5 that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”
6 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891
7 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
8 determination.
9 The IJ reasonably relied on Villacorta’s inconsistent statements at his border
10 interview and hearing. We have examined the interview record and conclude
11 that it represents a “sufficiently accurate record” to merit consideration in
12 determining credibility because it was conducted in Spanish, the record reflects
13 that Villacorta understood the questions asked, and the questions and his
14 responses appear to be transcribed verbatim. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
15 169, 179–80 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 396 (2d
16 Cir. 2005). Villacorta does not challenge the agency’s determination that the
17 interview record was sufficiently reliable.
18 Villacorta instead argues that there is no inconsistency. That contention is
19 refuted by the record. At the IJ hearing, Villacorta testified that gang members 4 1 assaulted and threatened to kill him, and that he decided to come to the United
2 States after the threats evolved to include threats against his family. In contrast,
3 at the border interview, he said that he came to the United States to find work and
4 planned to stay for five years. Villacorta was asked if he feared persecution or
5 torture, if he would be harmed in El Salvador, and if he had anything else he would
6 like to add. He replied “no” to all of these questions, despite having been
7 instructed that the interview might be his only chance to identify a fear or concern
8 about being removed. Villacorta did not offer explanations that resolved this
9 inconsistency.
10 Moreover, the adverse credibility determination is bolstered by the lack of
11 corroboration. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
12 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
13 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
14 question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Villacorta
15 provided two letters to support his application, one from his church in El Salvador
16 and one from his father. But neither letter mentions that Villacorta fled because
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Villacorta v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villacorta-v-garland-ca2-2023.