Amaro-Borilla v. Barr, 020520 FED9, 16-70337

Docket Nº:16-70337
Party Name:LEONARDO AMARO-BORILLA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
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

LEONARDO AMARO-BORILLA, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70337

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 5, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 3, 2020 [**] Pasadena, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A090-514-817

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 IJ's adverse credibility determination. First, the IJ's determination that Amaro-Borilla embellished his testimony that he assisted a homicide prosecution is supported by record evidence showing that he disrupted the prosecution's trial efforts by lying on the stand. Second, Amaro-Borilla's testimony of being on the Mexican Mafia's irrevocable death list is inconsistent with his admission of regular non-violent interactions with Mexican Mafia members. And third, his testimony regarding danger in Mexico does not compel a finding that drug cartels will be able to identify and target Amaro-Borilla. These deficiencies in Amaro-Borilla's testimony undermine his claim that, if removed to Mexico, he will be harmed by cartel members at the behest of the Mexican Mafia due to his cooperation with law enforcement. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 975-77 (9th Cir. 2015) (adverse credibility determination supported by substantial evidence based on testimony's "inherent implausibility" and "inconsistency with record evidence").

Based on Amaro-Borilla's insufficient testimony, the evidence does...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP