VELEZ VELASQUEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-19No. No. 17-70380

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. The court upheld the agency's adverse credibility determination, its denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and its rejection of the Convention Against Torture claim as substantially supported by evidence, and also upheld the denial of a continuance as not an abuse of discretion.

Jose Angel Velez Velasquez, a Mexican national, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court examined whether the agency's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and whether procedural errors occurred during his proceedings. The court found that the immigration judge's credibility determination was well-founded based on inconsistencies in Velasquez's testimony, his omission of prior departures from the United States, and implausible statements regarding his family's experience with violence. Because the court found his testimony not credible and his documentary evidence insufficient, his claims for asylum and withholding of removal could not succeed. Similarly, his torture claim rested entirely on the discredited testimony and lacked any other evidentiary support for the required showing of likely torture by the Mexican government.

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

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility determination based on inconsistent testimony and omissions
Whether documentary evidence was sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal independent of testimony
Whether the applicant met the burden for relief under the Convention Against Torture
Whether denial of a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion or due process violation

Procedural posture

The petitioner appealed from the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Angel Velez Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility determination based on Velez Velasquezs inconsistent statements about whether his family reported his cousins sons murder to the police and whether his cousin knew gang members, his omission of departures from the United States, and other implausible, non-responsive, and evasive testimony. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Velez Velasquezs 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 finding that Velez Velasquez did not present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioners documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Velez Velasquezs asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of Velez Velasquezs CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Velez Velasquez 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.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding Velez Velasquez failed to show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider in reviewing the denial of a continuance).

Velez Velasquezs contention that the agencys denial of a continuance violated his right to due process fails. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review Velez Velasquezs contentions concerning the IJs consideration of the governments evidence of a 2003 reentry and alleged bias against him. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction over claims not raised to agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.