NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEX ANATAN FUENTES MONZON, No. 21-70541 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-865-435 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 21, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, NGUYEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Alex Anatan Fuentes Monzon (Fuentes),1 a citizen and national of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision * 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). 1 Although the agency referred to the Petitioner as Alex Anatan Monzon Fuentes, his birth certificate and other documents indicate that his last name is Fuentes Monzon. denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Adverse Credibility Determination. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination where there were several inconsistencies among Fuentes’s hearing testimony, credible fear interview, and multiple declarations in support of his asylum application. For example, Fuentes failed to mention his preaching activities or that gang members threatened him in his credible fear interview, his asylum application, and his first few declarations. Additionally, Fuentes’s hearing testimony about his persecutors’ motivation was inconsistent with his earlier written statements and credible fear interview. See, e.g., Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[O]missions are probative of credibility to the extent that later disclosures, if credited, would bolster an earlier, and typically weaker, asylum application.”); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that petitioner’s failure to “mention his numerous political speeches in his initial application for asylum and interview with the asylum officer” provided substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility determination); see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If the person cannot tell substantially the same story twice in substantially the same way, that suggests a likelihood that the story is false.”). These discrepancies were significant because 2 Fuentes’s religious conduct was central to his evolving claim. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight”). And Fuentes failed to provide a compelling explanation when confronted with these inconsistencies. See id. Collectively, these discrepancies constitute substantial evidence to support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency’s adverse credibility finding supports its denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because “[w]ithout [Fuentes]’s testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to carry h[is] burden of establishing eligibility for relief.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017); see also …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals