NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0047n.06 Case No. 20-3478 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 25, 2021 ROBERTO CARLOS GUERRERO- ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk RAMIREZ, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioner, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney ) OPINION General, ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: BOGGS, SUTTON, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Roberto Carlos Guerrero-Ramirez crossed into the United States after traveling from Nicaragua through Central America to Mexico. When he arrived, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. After a hearing, an immigration judge denied his application, reasoning that he did not offer convincing corroborating evidence. The Board of Immigration Appeals also denied relief. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we deny Guerrero-Ramirez’s petition for review. A 29-year-old Nicaraguan citizen, Guerrero-Ramirez entered the United States in February of 2019. He sought asylum and other relief from removal. Case No. 20-3478, Guerrero-Ramirez v. Wilkinson At a hearing before an immigration judge, Guerrero-Ramirez gave this account. He worked in Nicaragua as a truck driver. When protests broke out in April 2018 over the government’s handling of social security benefits, he delivered money and medication to dissidents and hid protestors in his truck’s concealed compartment. After his name surfaced on a government list identifying protestors, Guerrero-Ramirez left the country for Costa Rica. He returned to Nicaragua to file a complaint with its Human Rights Commission, but the Commission told him that staying in Nicaragua remained risky. Guerrero-Ramirez headed north, hitchhiking to Mexico and then traveling by foot to the United States. After the hearing, the immigration judge denied his application. While the judge found him “generally credible,” he was troubled that Guerrero-Ramirez “failed to corroborate significant details from his testimony with sufficient evidence,” especially the source of the alleged list, proof that it was a government document, and its meaning. A.R. 85. The court noted that he “failed to file . . . statements from friends or family” corroborating his story and never offered evidence that the government list was an official document. Id. While Guerrero-Ramirez said that his schoolteacher gave him the list, he never produced anything from her to support that account or to explain where she got the list. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, explaining that it “agree[d] . . . that [Guerrero-Ramirez] did not sufficiently corroborate his claim with reasonably available evidence.” A.R. 13. We review the Board’s determination and the parts of the immigration judge’s reasoning it adopted. Al-Saka v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2018). We give fresh review to the Board’s legal conclusions, Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009), and accept its factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 Case No. 20-3478, Guerrero-Ramirez v. Wilkinson contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The burden fell on Guerrero-Ramirez to show that he is a “refugee” and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals