Baquiax v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN RENE BAQUIAX; HECTOR DE No. 07-72153
LA CRUZ-REYES, aka Ernesto Rene
Baquiax-Tun, Agency Nos.A070-934-660
A095-122-210
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 31, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and McCUSKEY, Chief
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael Patrick McCuskey, Chief United States
District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Juan Rene Baquiax, and derivatively his son Ernesto Rene Baquiax-Tun,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners asserted past
persecution and a fear of future persecution on account of Baquiax’s former
military and police service. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on adverse
credibility grounds. This court reviews adverse credibility findings under the
substantial evidence standard. Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir.
2010). An adverse credibility finding “will be upheld unless the evidence compels
a contrary result.” Id. (quoting Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.
2007)).
The BIA found that the adverse credibility finding was supported by the
record, pointing specifically to discrepancies in the petitioner’s testimony
regarding petitioner’s service in the military and national police. The BIA also
pointed to discrepancies between the petitioner’s application and his testimony.
For example, the application described a dramatic raid by the guerillas on the
petitioner’s town, but his testimony failed to mention it, even when he was
questioned on the events of that year by the IJ. Such omissions lend support to the
2
adverse credibility finding. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th
Cir. 2003). Petitioner was given ample opportunity to explain the discrepancies in
his testimony but provided no coherent explanation.
Moreover, there is no indication that the discrepancies and inconsistencies
were the product of an unscrupulous application preparer or the petitioner’s poor
grasp of English. The petitioner had multiple opportunities to explain and correct
the flaws in both the application and the testimony.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3