Pascal v. Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 25 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KESNER PASCAL, No. 21-1234
Petitioner, Agency No. 209-871-990
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 21, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Kesner Pascal, a citizen of Haiti, seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from a decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Pascal
contends that it was error to admit the Form I-213 and Record of Sworn Statement
because they were not properly certified or authenticated. We have long held that
the Form I-213 is probative, and its admission is fair absent evidence of coercion
or that the statements are not those of the petitioner. See Trias-Hernandez v. INS,
528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975).
Pascal claims he was coerced into signing the Sworn Statement while he was
detained and did not have it read back to him in a language he could understand.
But the record indicates that his interview was conducted in Creole, and he swore
that his answers were given voluntarily and truthfully. Information on an
immigration form is “presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the
contrary presented by the [petitioner].” Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.
1995). Pascal’s Form I-213 and Record of Sworn Statement were signed by an
authorized certifying designee of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The IJ’s
admission of the two documents was therefore not error.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
Pascal’s testimony concerning his fear of returning was inconsistent with his
statement during his interview that he had no fear of returning, and the
inconsistency was not adequately explained.
2
Pascal’s CAT claim similarly fails. Pascal is unable to point to any evidence
that compels reversal of the agency’s CAT decision. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
3