NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 4 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EZRA DAVE GIPAN MALING, No. 16-70634 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-970-570 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 2, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Ezra Dave Gipan Maling, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying adjustment of status; cancellation of removal for permanent and nonpermanent residents; voluntary * 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). departure; waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(E), (H) and 1182(i); withholding of removal; and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part. 1. Maling challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which the BIA affirmed. We “must uphold [the adverse credibility determination] unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Maling’s contentions that the agency misconstrued his testimony or disregarded corroborating evidence. The BIA based its decision on multiple inconsistencies between Maling’s testimony and other documentary and testimonial evidence in the record as well as the implausibility of Maling’s explanations for the inconsistencies. The evidence on which Maling relies and the record as a whole do not compel a result contrary to that reached by the BIA. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 1999). In light of the adverse credibility determination, the record supports the agency’s finding that Maling is removable for attempting to procure an immigration benefit by willfully misrepresenting a material fact in his 2015 naturalization interview. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (alien who is inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status is removable); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (alien who seeks an immigration benefit by willfully misrepresenting a material fact is inadmissible). 2 16-70634 2. We are not persuaded by Maling’s contentions that the agency’s discretionary denials of adjustment of status; cancellation of removal for permanent and nonpermanent residents; voluntary departure; and waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(E), (H) and 1182(i) were based on legal or constitutional errors. See Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court has jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination listed at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) only if it involves constitutional claims or questions of law). Given this determination, we need not address Maling’s challenge to the agency’s alternate ground for denying adjustment of status. 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Maling is ineligible for withholding of removal because there are serious ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals