NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS ANTONIO ZAVALETA-SAN No. 16-72273 LUCAS, Agency No. A200-885-043 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2018** Seattle, Washington Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jesus Zavaleta-San Lucas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal on * 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). adverse credibility grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, and we therefore deny the petition. We review for substantial evidence decisions by the BIA denying eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). Where, as here, the BIA “incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 2008)). We also review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We defer to the factual findings of the BIA, and they “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the BIA’s interpretations of legal questions de novo. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 2003). Zavaleta-San Lucas alleges that he fears harm at the hands of the Flores Flores family, which is a part of the Antorcha political party in his hometown of Tepexi de Rodriguez, Puebla, Mexico. Zavaleta-San Lucas stated that the Flores Flores family dislikes his family because of its support of a different political 2 party. Zavaleta-San Lucas testified that he was attacked on multiple occasions by members of the Flores Flores family, but omitted this testimony from his earlier written statement. Because of these omissions, the IJ made an adverse credibility determination and denied Zavaleta-San Lucas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. The BIA affirmed. Credibility determinations are made considering the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of removal). When evaluating discrepancies between statements, “an omission may form the basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals