NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GUADALUPE CANCINO- No. 21-244 MAGANA, Agency No. A213-076-928 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER, LEE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Jose Guadalupe Cancino-Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order adopting the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination and denial of his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without opinion, we “review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2005). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, factual findings are upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 1. Mr. Cancino-Magana challenges the IJ’s denial of withholding and CAT protection only because it rests on an incorrect adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, if we uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, Mr. Cancino-Magana’s withholding and CAT claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). 2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. When making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including the applicant’s “candor”; “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account”; the “consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements”; “and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An applicant’s “inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood” may still be relevant to credibility even if it does not go to the “heart of the applicant’s claim.” Id. 2 Here, the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances and provided ten reasons for the adverse credibility determination. Some of these reasons are not supported by substantial evidence. However, the cumulative weight of the valid factors is sufficient support for the IJ’s credibility finding. See Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2021); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). First, the IJ emphasized that Mr. Cancino-Magana made misrepresentations to immigration officials. Mr. Cancino-Magana admits that he presented false documents to immigration officials and falsely stated that he was a U.S. citizen while trying to cross the border. “An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals