United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1620 CRISTIAN JOSUE DIAZ ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Howard, Chief Judge, Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Kristin M. Beale, with whom Ellen Scordino, Gemma Seidita, and Cooley LLP were on brief, for petitioner. Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief, for respondent. May 15, 2020 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3); Pub. L. No. 105– 277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). The IJ found that Diaz Ortiz did not meet his burden to show eligibility for any of the grounds for relief he sought and ordered Diaz Ortiz removed. The IJ found that Diaz Ortiz was not credible and gave several reasons, including inconsistencies in his testimony and contradiction of his testimony through other evidence. This lack of credibility finding was based in part on field reports, gathered by Boston-area law enforcement and summarized in a government database, that concerned Diaz Ortiz's association with alleged MS-13 gang members and contradicted aspects of his testimony. In part, the finding was also based on an inconsistency in his testimony. That inconsistency undercut his attempt to give an innocent reason to his possession of a padlock and chain, which the government says are weapons used by MS-13 gang members. His response to the IJ's request that he explain the inconsistency was itself not credible. The IJ noted a lack of corroborative evidence. - 2 - The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision in a careful opinion. After this court denied a stay of removal, Diaz Ortiz was removed. The parties agree the petition is not moot. See Leitao v. Reno, 311 F.3d 453, 456 (1st Cir. 2002). Diaz Ortiz argues that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. He argues that introduction of law enforcement gang database records violated his due process rights, and that his testimony was not inconsistent. From this, he argues that the finding that he had not met his burden was error. He also argues that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard to his withholding of removal and CAT claims. Because all of these arguments lack merit, we deny his petition for review. I. On July 21, 2015, Diaz Ortiz, then sixteen years old, entered the United States near Rio Grande City, Texas. Immigration officials quickly arrested him, initiated removal proceedings against him, and released him into the custody of his uncle, who lived in East Boston, an area within the City of Boston. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals