SANTOS CAMACHO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-24No. No. 19-70573

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that substantial evidence supported both the agency's adverse credibility determination and its corresponding denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Wilfredo Santos Camacho, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to evaluate the agency's factual findings, including its credibility assessment under the REAL ID Act framework.

The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Santos Camacho was not credible. His testimony contained multiple inconsistencies regarding his cousin's murder, which family members lived in Mexico, and the details of his entries and exits from the United States. These inconsistencies were further contradicted by documentary evidence. The court rejected his explanations as insufficient to overcome the credibility finding.

Because the agency's denial of his torture protection claim rested entirely on the testimony it found unreliable, and Santos Camacho offered no other evidence suggesting he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the Mexican government's consent or acquiescence, the court upheld the denial of his application.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility assessment under the REAL ID Act standard
Inconsistencies in applicant's testimony regarding family circumstances and entry/exit history
Convention Against Torture protection eligibility
Standard of review for agency factual findings

Procedural posture

The applicant petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his Convention Against Torture application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Wilfredo Santos Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Santos Camachos testimony as to the circumstances of his cousins murder and which family members reside in Mexico, and inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence as to his entries to and departures from the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of the circumstances”). Santos Camachos explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of Santos Camachos CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Santos Camacho does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.