NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 4 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERARDO GARCIA MORENO, No. 19-71381 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-393-360 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 19, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KELLY** and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Chief Judge THOMAS Gerardo Garcia Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Garcia Moreno sought asylum and withholding of removal because of a claimed fear of persecution on the basis of his sexual orientation. The immigration judge found Garcia Moreno not credible because he expressly denied any fear of return at his first border interview and instead waited until his third entry into the United States to apply for asylum. Garcia Moreno explained that he was reluctant to voice his fear to immigration officials because he “was very ashamed” of his sexual orientation. The immigration judge considered Garcia Moreno’s explanation but rejected it as insufficient to explain the inconsistency. Because Garcia Moreno had been informed of the possibility of seeking asylum during his second entry, the immigration judge did not find it credible that Garcia Moreno would wait to share his fear when he had the “potential of asking to speak to a female or speaking to anyone, even an attorney, who would be able to assist him.” The Board “discern[ed] no clear error with the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding because it [was] supported by specific, cogent reasons,” and the Board therefore upheld the immigration judge’s denial of Garcia Moreno’s application for asylum. When the Board’s decision “relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning,” as it does here, “we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012)). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, 2 Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013), and therefore must “uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion,” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Applying that “extremely deferential standard of review,” Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007), we conclude that the record does not compel us to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the Board and the immigration judge. We therefore must uphold the adverse credibility finding. The inconsistency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals