Cancino-Magana v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE CANCINO- No. 21-244
MAGANA, Agency No.
A213-076-928
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, LEE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guadalupe Cancino-Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order adopting the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination and denial of his
claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition for review.
Where, as here, the BIA summarily adopts the IJ’s decision without
opinion, we “review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.” Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2005). “We review factual findings,
including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia
v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, factual findings are upheld
“unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
1. Mr. Cancino-Magana challenges the IJ’s denial of withholding and CAT
protection only because it rests on an incorrect adverse credibility determination.
Accordingly, if we uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, Mr.
Cancino-Magana’s withholding and CAT claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
When making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ must consider “the
totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including the applicant’s
“candor”; “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account”; the
“consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements”; “and any
inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
An applicant’s “inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood” may still be relevant to
credibility even if it does not go to the “heart of the applicant’s claim.” Id.2
Here, the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances and provided ten
reasons for the adverse credibility determination. Some of these reasons are not
supported by substantial evidence. However, the cumulative weight of the valid
factors is sufficient support for the IJ’s credibility finding. See Kumar v. Garland,
18 F.4th 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2021); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 n.4
(9th Cir. 2010).
First, the IJ emphasized that Mr. Cancino-Magana made
misrepresentations to immigration officials. Mr. Cancino-Magana admits that he
presented false documents to immigration officials and falsely stated that he was
a U.S. citizen while trying to cross the border. “An asylum applicant who lies to
immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”
Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Cancino-Magana
argues, however, that the IJ failed to acknowledge mitigating circumstances—
namely, that he lied only after arriving at the border by mistake and that he
expressed candor by admitting the lie. But the IJ considered these explanations
and thought they were implausible. The IJ was not required to accept Mr.
Cancino-Magana’s explanation for the false information presented. Li v.
Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960–61 (9th Cir. 2021).
Second, Mr. Cancino-Magana made an omission that supports the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. Specifically, he neglected to mention that he had been
arrested for contempt of court and convicted for driving under the influence while
previously living in the United States. This omission is not a mere “detail,” and
3
the IJ adequately addressed Mr. Cancino-Magana’s explanations for the
omission. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Soto-
Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the IJ noted the inherent implausibility of Mr. Cancino-Magana’s
supposed encounter with the Michoacán governor. The IJ found that the story
was implausible because it was unlikely that Mr. Cancino-Magana could sneak
into the governor’s office after being turned away by guards, that the governor
would talk to Mr. Cancino-Magana after he snuck into the mansion, and that the
governor would tell him to leave the country after such a brief exchange. The
IJ’s common-sense conclusion was reasonable, so it supports the adverse
credibility determination. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir.
2021) (“[W]e cannot supplant the IJ’s reasonable assumption with any alternative
explanation offered on appeal.”).
PETITION DENIED.
4