Victor Bravo Gomez v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR BRAVO GOMEZ, aka Isabel No. 14-71178 Franco Perea, Agency No. A095-787-342 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 6, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,*** District Judge. * 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Nickie Bravo-Gomez, previously known as Victor Bravo-Gomez, appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). A finding is not supported by substantial evidence when “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Zhi, 751 F.3d at 1091) (internal quotation marks omitted). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. 1. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA relied in part on the inconsistencies in Ms. Bravo-Gomez’s descriptions of an attack that allegedly occurred in February of 2011. She first stated that she was attacked by one man inside a club, but later stated that she was attacked by two men outside of the club. The BIA’s reliance on these material inconsistencies is sufficient to support its adverse credibility determination. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2014). Because one 2 inconsistency is enough to support an adverse credibility finding, we need not examine the remaining grounds identified by the BIA. Id. 2. The BIA did not err in finding insufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. None of the proffered evidence corroborates the February 2011 attack in sufficient detail. Because the IJ did not find Ms. Bravo-Gomez’s testimony credible, she was not entitled to notice and opportunity to obtain such evidence. See Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The notice-and-opportunity requirement applies when the applicant’s testimony is ‘otherwise credible.’” (quoting Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011))). 3. Because the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and is sufficient to deny the asylum and withholding of removal claims, we need not reach the BIA’s alternate ruling that relief is not warranted because Ms. Bravo-Gomez could relocate in Mexico. ...

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