Santos Par-Jiatz v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTOS PAR-JIATZ, No. 20-72980 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-576-116 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Santos Par-Jiatz (“Par-Jiatz”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We review factual findings for substantial * 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). evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review in part, deny it in part, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. 1. Par-Jiatz challenges the agency’s adverse credibility finding. Substantial evidence, however, supports that finding. Because Par-Jiatz filed his withholding of removal application after May 11, 2005, the IJ was required to base his credibility determination on the “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)) (cleaned up). An IJ must “provide specific and cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). When assessing credibility, an IJ may consider inconsistencies between a noncitizen’s statements and other record evidence that are not “mere trivial error[s]” and omissions that constitute “[m]aterial alterations in the [non-citizen’s] account of persecution.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. Specific and cogent reasons support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The BIA noted several inconsistencies between Par-Jiatz’s testimony and his affidavit (“personal statement”) as the basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding: (1) inconsistent statements regarding “who [in his family] received the threats from the gangs,” (2) inconsistent statements regarding 2 “whether [Par-Jiatz’s] family contacted the police after the threats,” and (3) “omission[s] from his personal statement regarding the hardships he suffered because of his indigenous status.” All three inconsistencies concerned Par-Jiatz’s alleged persecution and were not mere trivial discrepancies. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. These inconsistencies between Par-Jiatz’s oral testimony and his personal statement in support of his application, in light of all the circumstances, provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility finding. Id. at 1039, 1044. We therefore reject Par-Jiatz’s challenge to the adverse credibility finding. 2. Par-Jiatz further challenges the agency determination that his asylum application was untimely. We generally do not consider matters not “specifically and distinctly argued in [the] appellant’s opening brief.” Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, …

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