NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN RASCON-SIERRA, AKA Dean No. 19-71294 Sierra-Rascon, Agency No. A095-131-960 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 1, 2021** Phoenix, Arizona Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Dean Sierra-Rascon, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his claims for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and review denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief for “substantial evidence.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Sierra failed to establish “a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened if he returned to his homeland on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (simplified). Our review of an adverse credibility finding is “significantly restricted.” Id. at 1041 (simplified). The immigration judge (“IJ”) concluded that Sierra did not testify credibly and that other evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for relief. The BIA affirmed that conclusion. A review of the record shows that Sierra testified inconsistently about his encounters with his brother, his alleged persecutor, including whether his brother used weapons or was accompanied by others. Although Sierra offered explanations for some of his discrepancies, the IJ and BIA were entitled to reject those reasons. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). For example, the IJ and BIA permissibly discounted his explanation for stating the wrong date of his entry into the United States on his I-589, which had been prepared with the assistance of counsel. 2 In addition to the discrepancies in the record, the IJ and BIA found it implausible that Sierra was threatened by his brother three times in twelve years in a “strikingly similar” fashion. Implausibility may form the basis of a credibility determination, and nothing in the record compels a different finding here. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007). Given these issues with credibility, the evidence also does not compel reversing the IJ’s weighing of Sierra’s expert witness testimony. Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006). The IJ found the expert’s testimony, although credible, was based on Sierra’s own untrustworthy and speculative assertion that his brother was a member of the Sinaloa Cartel. As the BIA held, such a reason supports discounting the weight of an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals