NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO ALFONSO CHAVEZ- No. 20-72943 GUZMAN, Agency No. A208-893-953 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 10, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Fernando Alfonso Chavez-Guzman petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal[,] and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Likewise, “[w]e review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). “[T]here is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the [Immigration Judge] is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. Petitioner claims that, while he was riding his bicycle, a group of police officers and gang members chose him to transport drugs to the capital of Honduras, which was a four-hour drive from his hometown. Yet he had no way of transporting the drugs and could only speculate that he was chosen because he was “sometimes” a passenger in his coworker’s vehicle. And although he was purportedly required to deliver drugs every fifteen days, the men who recruited him left “packages” of drugs outside Petitioner’s home unattended for more than three months and never attempted to contact him or his relatives during that time. When 2 the Immigration Judge asked Petitioner how this could be, Petitioner was “silent for a minute” and then claimed that the men failed to deliver additional drugs because they were too busy “looking for [him].” The Immigration Judge did not error in concluding that Petitioner’s story was implausible. See Lalayan, 4 F.4th at 836. Petitioner’s account also contained inconsistencies. He was inconsistent about when his parents moved, testifying that the men came to his parent’s house and threatened his mother on June 20, 2016, but claiming later that his parents moved “[o]ne week after the packages were delivered” in March 2016. He was also inconsistent about a purported attack in January 2016, claiming in his statement that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals