Case: 21-147, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 60.1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Martin Rios Naranjo, No. 21-147 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-112-275 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Martin Rios Naranjo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the Board adopted the immigration judge’s decision by citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 * 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). Case: 21-147, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 60.1, Page 2 of 5 (B.I.A. 1994), we review both decisions. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination so long as the “totality of the circumstances” provides substantial evidence for it. Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc); see also Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the substantial-evidence standard, we must accept the agency’s factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1677 (2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The immigration judge identified two significant inconsistencies in Rios’s testimony. First, Rios testified inconsistently about whether police or armed civilians attacked him when he was kidnapped in January 2017. His written declaration recounted, “I struggled with the police and then 4 armed civilians got into the truck and began to beat me with their rifles until I was unconscious.” But he later testified that “[t]he police” hit him. Rios argues that he was using the word “civilian” to refer to anyone not in the military, a usage that would not exclude police officers. The immigration judge was not required to accept that explanation, and it makes little sense given that, within the same sentence, Rios distinguished “armed civilians” from “the police.” This inconsistency concerns a key element of Rios’s claim for CAT protection— whether public officials were complicit in the harm he suffered. See Shrestha v. 2 21-147 Case: 21-147, 02/21/2023, DktEntry: 60.1, Page 3 of 5 Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 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.”). Second, Rios testified inconsistently about …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals