NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN ELENILSO MELENDEZ, AKA No. 16-70815 Edwin Melendez Fuentes, Agency No. A094-460-102 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 7, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. Edwin Melendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of * 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). *** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Melendez’s testimony lacked credibility. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). During questioning about his criminal history, Melendez repeatedly downplayed and failed to take responsibility for the crimes of which he had been accused or convicted, demonstrating a lack of candor that the IJ was permitted to consider in reaching its credibility determination. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020). Melendez also failed to articulate from which, if any, groups or individuals in El Salvador he feared persecution. Finally, Melendez’s omission of his uncle’s murder from his asylum application and the early portion of his testimony also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira, 827 F.3d at 1185 (“An adverse credibility determination may [also] be supported by omissions that are not details, but new allegations that tell a much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than the initial application.”). 2 The IJ properly concluded that the only corroborating evidence that Melendez submitted, country conditions reports and articles on generalized gang violence in El Salvador, was insufficient to support his claims given its lack of connection to Melendez’s personal circumstances. Without more, “generalized evidence of violence . . . is insufficient” to establish eligibility for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION DENIED. 3 16-70815 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Edwin Melendez v. Merrick Garland 10 March 2022 Agency Unpublished 83466a7a86121e42e44cac1e5104464a211d8200
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals