Jorge Segovia v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE NEFTALI SEGOVIA, No. 20-73060 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-206-108 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 7, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jorge Neftali Segovia, a citizen and national of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for adjustment of status and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1. Segovia challenges the IJ’s admission of three immigration documents from his 2012 arrest: the Form I-213, Record of a Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (“Form I-213”), and two Seized Assets and Case Tracking System incident reports (“SEACATS Reports”). “We review legal and constitutional questions, including alleged due process violations, de novo.” Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). The Form I-213 and SEACATS Reports were authenticated, probative, and their admission was fundamentally fair. Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). Segovia has not met his burden of coming forward with “enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit” these documents. Id. Although Segovia identifies some inconsistencies within the documents, the inconsistencies do not render the relevant portions of the documents unreliable or their admission unfair. Id. 2. Segovia also challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. We review for substantial evidence and may not reverse unless “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up) (emphasis in original). The IJ may base her credibility determination on the totality of the circumstances, including “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements” or “any other relevant factor.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by Segovia’s inconsistent testimony regarding his relationship with his co-arrestee Jose Reyes, his travel to and from Texas before his 2013 arrest, and the extortion threat to his daughter.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). In addition, Segovia’s testimony regarding his criminal history was implausible, and the IJ pointed to specific “noncredible aspects of the petitioner’s demeanor” on the stand. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2010)). The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was therefore supported by substantial evidence. 3. Segovia next challenges …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals