NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS AUGUSTO MARES-SANCHEZ, No. 19-72257 Petitioner, Agency No. A207-181-395 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and McSHANE,*** 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 Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Carlos Augusto Mares-Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. The BIA’s factual findings and adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). First, the finding that Mares-Sanchez was not “admitted” to the United States was supported by substantial evidence. Mares-Sanchez conceded that he was not admitted during the pleading stage of the proceedings. He later presented testimonial evidence that he was waved through a port of entry when he entered the United States in 2004, which would suffice to be an “admission” under In re Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 290 (BIA 2010), for purposes of adjustment of status. The IJ did not credit this evidence, however, and the BIA affirmed the adverse credibility determination. “When, like here, the BIA issues its own decision but adopts particular parts of the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. . . . In conducting our review, we examine the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA and the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those 2 reasons.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The BIA described the IJ’s credibility analysis as “thorough” and “well-reasoned,” and the BIA noted that, “[a]s the [IJ] found,” the testimony describing Mares-Sanchez’s alleged Quinlantan entry was “implausible, and insufficiently supported by independent corroborating evidence.” “[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1041). No such circumstances are present here. The agency offered “specific and cogent reasons” in support of its adverse credibility determination, including the implausibility of Mares-Sanchez’s account as well as a lack of objective corroborating evidence. Iman, 972 F.3d at 1064. Second, the agency correctly concluded that Mares-Sanchez is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his conviction of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals