792 Fed.Appx. 493 (9th Cir. 2020), 16-70337, Amaro-Borilla v. Barr

Docket Nº:16-70337
Citation:792 Fed.Appx. 493
Party Name:Leonardo AMARO-BORILLA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Matthew G. Holt, Esquire, Attorney, Hurwitz Holt, APLC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph. D., Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of...
Judge Panel:Before: IKUTA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.
Case Date:February 05, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 493

792 Fed.Appx. 493 (9th Cir. 2020)

Leonardo AMARO-BORILLA, Petitioner,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70337

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 5, 2020

Submitted February 3, 2020 [*] Pasadena, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Matthew G. Holt, Esquire, Attorney, Hurwitz Holt, APLC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph. D., Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX4-817

Before: IKUTA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,[**] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [***]

Leonardo Amaro-Borilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of: (i) his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture; and (ii) his motion for recusal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. We review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief for substantial evidence. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). We must deny the petition unless "the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it." See id. (emphasis in original). Where, as here, the BIA "adopts the decision of the IJ," we review "the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA." Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the IJs adverse credibility determination. First, the IJs determination that Amaro-Borilla embellished his testimony that he assisted a homicide prosecution is supported by record evidence showing that he disrupted the prosecutions trial efforts by lying on the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP