NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAY 26 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL RIVAS PEREZ, No. 19-71617 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-101-569 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, NGUYEN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Raul Rivas Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board or BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and * 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). relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on an adverse credibility determination.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). “Factual findings ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id., quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law . . . , our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition. Rivas Perez testified that he was kidnapped by six men and held captive for approximately two months. In his written declaration, Rivas Perez stated that his captors shot him twice in the arm on the second night of his captivity and placed a bag over his head multiple times to suffocate him. During direct examination, Rivas Perez testified that, after being beaten in the course of his abduction, he did not suffer further physical harm during his captivity, including suffocation. He 1 The Board also affirmed the IJ’s denial of Rivas Perez’s application for asylum based on the determination that he is ineligible for asylum because of a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (b)(2)(B)(i). Rivas Perez does not challenge that decision on appeal. 2 also testified that when his captors released him, they threw him, he heard “buck, buck, buck,” and his arm was subsequently injured. Rivas Perez had opportunities during cross and redirect examination to explain the discrepancy between his written declaration and testimony with respect to the alleged suffocation. He provided various explanations including that he did not hear the question, did not understand it, and had not been given a chance to explain. The IJ also asked why Rivas Perez stated in his written declaration that he was shot on the second day of his captivity but testified that his arm …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals