NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN GIOVANN GARCIA- No. 17-72200 MALDONADO, Agency No. A206-093-995 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 5, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Edwin Giovann Garcia-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his claims for asylum * 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). and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence and will not reverse unless the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009). Inconsistencies and omissions in a petitioner’s testimony can support an adverse credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ found that Garcia-Maldonado’s testimony regarding the threats directed at him conflicted with the statements he made during his credible fear interview and in his affidavit supporting his asylum application. The IJ also found that Garcia-Maldonado’s statements during his credible fear interview and in his affidavit omitted significant details regarding the threats directed at his father about which he later testified at the merits hearing. The BIA upheld the IJ’s conclusion that these inconsistencies and omissions supported an adverse credibility determination, and we agree. The record shows that Garcia-Maldonado’s testimony regarding the threats directed at him and his father materially differed from his earlier statements to the asylum 1 Garcia-Maldonado did not challenge the agency’s denial of his requests for protection under the Convention Against Torture and for humanitarian relief. Thus, he waived those claims. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013). 2 officer and from his affidavit. An adverse credibility determination can also be supported by a petitioner’s embellishment of his case. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA upheld the IJ’s finding that Garcia-Maldonado embellished his case regarding the number of threats that he received before he left Guatemala. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Between his statements to an asylum officer during his credible fear interview, his affidavit in support of his asylum application, and his testimony during the merits hearing, Garcia- Maldonado progressively increased the number of threats that he purportedly received while living in Guatemala. In so doing, Garcia-Maldonado told “a much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than his initial application and testimony ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals