FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUDY ARBILDO VALDIZAN, No. 18-70722 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-012-521 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Rudy Arbildo Valdizan, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") final order, on remand from this court, affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and of the BIA’s prior 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). affirming the IJ’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We must uphold an adverse credibility determination if substantial evidence supports even one ground relied on. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA permissibly relied on the inconsistency that the IJ identified between Petitioner’s hearing testimony and his sworn statement to a United States Customs and Border Protection agent. At his hearing, Petitioner testified that smugglers kidnapped and robbed him and then forced him to use a fake identification card to apply for admission to the United States. But in his sworn statement, Petitioner said that he paid a smuggler in Mexico to take him to New York and used the fake identification because he needed to escape from Peru, and the smugglers gave him an identification card to do so. The IJ did not have to accept Petitioner’s evasive and unresponsive explanations for the inconsistency. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner’s admission that he lied to a United States consular officer about his living situation in Peru and about his reason for visiting the United States when he applied for a visa also provides substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 2 determination. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a petitioner’s choice to lie to immigration authorities "always counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding, unless the lie falls within the narrow Akinmade [v. INS, 196 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 1999)] exception"). The Akinmade exception does not apply because Petitioner did not testify, or present other evidence, that he lied "in order to flee his place of persecution or secure entry into the United States." Akinmade, 196 F.3d at 955. Petitioner was the sole witness in support of his application, so his asylum and withholding claims depended on his credible testimony. The BIA’s denial of those claims is, thus, supported by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals