FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMAR ALBERTO BENAVIDES, No. 20-72141 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-190-392 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 5, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District Judge. * 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 Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Petitioner Omar Benavides, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s decision and added its own observations, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision. Nuru v. Gonzalez, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). The IJ and the BIA noted inconsistencies between Petitioner’s written and oral statements. For example, in Petitioner’s declaration, he wrote that he "briefly took off [his] shirt" one night, after a bartender told him that he should never display his tattoos because gang members would target him. In the declaration, he linked his decision to take off his shirt that night with an incident two weeks later, when the police came to his house and said that gangs were going to kill him because of his tattoos. But at the hearing, Petitioner testified that he took his shirt off at noon, in public, and that people nearby saw his tattoos as a result. Petitioner argues that the inconsistency is immaterial and has no bearing on his credibility. 1 We also deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal. 2 We disagree. The discrepancy is not trivial because Petitioner’s claims for relief are premised on his fear that the police or gang members will perceive him to be a gang member because of his tattoos. Accordingly, the manner in which bystanders and the police became aware of his tattoos is relevant. Cf. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 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."). As another example, Petitioner offered inconsistent statements regarding where he fled after gang members beat him at a restaurant. Petitioner’s declaration stated that, after leaving the hospital where he received treatment for his injuries, he did not want to endanger his aunt …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals