NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIMMY ALEXANDER CARCAMO- No. 19-71823 PINEDA, Agency No. A208-283-352 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District Judge. Jimmy Carcamo-Pineda (“Carcamo”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision * 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 Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The agency’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence review means that we must uphold a factual finding if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 1. Carcamo first challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing adverse credibility determination under the substantial evidence standard). Carcamo presented a series of changing timelines between his oral testimony, written asylum application, credible fear interview, and supporting documentation. When provided the opportunity to explain these discrepancies, Carcamo testified that he had misinformed the asylum officer because he was afraid police in Honduras would find out that he had spoken out against them. This explanation was 2 unsatisfactory because Carcamo had testified that the Honduran police were already well-aware of his investigation of them. Additionally, Carcamo’s assertion that threats against his family prompted his flight to the United States was undermined by his prior statements indicating that the threats were made years earlier. Thus, Carcamo’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not “‘compel[]’” the conclusion that he testified credibly. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908–09 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The record evidence supports the IJ’s decision to discredit Carcamo’s testimony. 2. Carcamo contends that the agency erred in finding that serious reasons existed to believe he “committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in Honduras. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1188 (9th Cir. 2016) (describing the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii) (withholding of removal)). The IJ noted that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals