NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0575n.06 No. 21-3332 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED CRISTHOFER CORRALES-HERRERA, ) Dec 09, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ) ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) ) BEFORE: BOGGS, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Cristhofer Corrales-Herrera applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) & 1231(b)(3). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. He now petitions us for review of the BIA’s decision. We DENY the petition. Corrales-Herrera is a twenty-one-year-old native and citizen of Honduras who came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor in February 2014. His parents live in the United States, but he has many family members still in Honduras. He is not married and has no children. Shortly after his arrival in the United States, Corrales-Herrera was charged as removable for entering the country illegally and released to live with his parents in Tennessee. The IJ sustained his removability charge, and Corrales-Herrera applied in January 2016 for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, making the same central argument that he Case No. 21-3332, Corrales-Herrera v. Garland does here—that he fears persecution by gangs should he be forced to return to Honduras. He bases his fears on threats from gang members and violence he and his family have suffered at the hands of Honduran gangs. Although there were inconsistencies between his testimony to an asylum officer and his in- court testimony, the IJ found Corrales-Herrera to be credible. The IJ thoroughly considered his arguments and, while she was “very sympathetic” to his situation, in October 2018 she ordered Corrales-Herrera to be removed to Honduras. Corrales-Herrera then appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal in March 2021, adopting the reasoning of the IJ and affirming her findings. Corrales-Herrera timely appealed to this court, arguing that the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ is not supported by substantial evidence. He claims that he has adequately established (1) his claim for asylum, (2) his claim for withholding of removal, and (3) his claim under the CAT. We take each in turn. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal issued by the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Marikasi v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 2016). “Where the BIA reviews the immigration judge’s decision and issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Morgan v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 1053, 1057 (6th Cir. 2007)). But “to the extent the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s reasoning, this court also reviews the immigration judge’s decision.” Sanchez-Robles …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals