Pacheco v. Garland

• Decision Date: 30 June 2022
• Docket Number: 17-70945
• Parties: MIGUEL ARMANDO BATZ PACHECO, aka Gilbert Garcia Ventura Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

MIGUEL ARMANDO BATZ PACHECO, aka Gilbert Garcia Ventura Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-70945

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 30, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 15, 2022 ^[**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A205-721-169

Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^[*]

Miguel Armando Batz Pacheco, a.k.a. Gilbert Garcia Ventura, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the "BIA") denial of his asylum application and requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Before us, Batz Pacheco raises four issues. He asserts that the agency erred (1) in not finding an exception to the one-year filing deadline for an asylum application; (2) in holding that he did not testify credibly (3) in determining that he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground; and (4) in finding that he had not established eligibility for relief under the CAT. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we dismiss in part and deny in part.

1. Batz Pacheco has not shown that the BIA erred in upholding the finding by the Immigration Judge ("IJ") that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely. An asylum application must be filed within a year of a noncitizen's entry into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), unless the applicant shows "either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Batz Pacheco entered the United States in 2006 and did not file his application for asylum until 2014. The agency did not credit Batz Pacheco's evidence concerning his claim of changed circumstances. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of relief from the one-year time limit based on its resolution of this disputed issue of fact. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649-54 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), review of changed circumstances determinations is limited to questions of law, including the application of law to undisputed facts); see also Patel v. Garland, 142 S.Ct. 1614, 1623 (2022) (reaffirming that "judicial review of factfinding is unavailable" under § 1252(a)(2)(D)). We therefore dismiss this aspect of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

2. Batz Pacheco's challenge to the IJ's adverse credibility finding is not persuasive. We review the agency's "factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence." Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013)). We must uphold an adverse credibility determination "unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). There is no presumption that an applicant is credible and the IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on the totality of the circumstances. Manes, 875 F.3d at 1263. Accordingly, "only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination." Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Batz Pacheco asserts that the IJ should have recognized that he struggles to recall exact dates and times, particularly when placed in a stressful situation. His nervousness might be one reason for his confused testimony, but it does not explain his vague details about the alleged robberies and the inconsistencies between his testimony and his brother's testimony concerning his father's alleged beating. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination.

3. Batz Pacheco's third claim, that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of belonging to a particular social group, is also not persuasive. To qualify for withholding of removal, he must prove that his "life or freedom would be threatened" if he is returned to Guatemala because of his "race, religion, nationality membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on account of a protected ground). Accepting that a family...