Case: 17-60213 Document: 00514573978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60213 July 27, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk EDRAS ORDONEZ-MEJIA, also known as Edras Ordenez-Majia, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 224 880 Before JOLLY, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edras Ordonez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ordonez-Mejia argues that (1) the BIA and IJ improperly excluded the testimony of his expert witness by concluding that the testimony was hearsay * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60213 Document: 00514573978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2018 No. 17-60213 and by making an adverse credibility determination, (2) the record established a clear probability of persecution and demonstrated that he could not safely relocate within Guatemala, and (3) the record established a clear probability of torture upon return to Guatemala. Additionally, Ordonez-Mejia moves for a stay of removal. Generally, we have authority to review only the decision of the BIA but will consider the IJ’s decision if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and conclusions, the IJ’s findings are reviewable. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence and rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. Under the substantial evidence standard, the immigration decision must be based upon the evidence presented and must be “substantially reasonable.” Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 236 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Contrary to Ordonez-Mejia’s assertions, the IJ neither excluded the expert witness’s testimony nor made an adverse credibility determination. The IJ expressly accepted some of the expert witness’s testimony. However, the IJ rejected the expert’s testimony that the gang Ordonez-Mejia feared had recently been to his abandoned family home in Guatemala looking for family members. The IJ concluded that the testimony was simply too tenuous and speculative because it was not based on first-hand knowledge; instead, the expert had gotten the information from Guatemalan police officers who had gotten their information from Ordonez-Mejia’s former neighbors. As the BIA noted, it was within the purview of the IJ to make any credibility determinations and to accord the appropriate weight to be given to the evidence and testimony presented, including hearsay. See Castillo-Lopez v. 2 Case: 17-60213 Document: 00514573978 Page: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals