CABRERA VALENCIA v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 18-72904

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied.

Rogaciano Cabrera-Valencia, a Mexican national, sought court review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to dismiss his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his withholding of removal application. The court examined whether the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether any due process violations occurred. The court found that the agency reasonably determined Cabrera-Valencia was not credible based on his statements to immigration officials that he did not fear returning to Mexico and his unclear testimony about political matters.

The court rejected Cabrera-Valencia's arguments on two additional grounds. First, it declined to consider new claims about the origins of a criminal organization and his brothers' disappearances because the Board of Immigration Appeals had not relied on those issues. Second, the court found no due process violation regarding his inability to access certain records, as he failed to demonstrate any resulting error. Cabrera-Valencia also requested the case be sent back to the immigration court to clarify his testimony and pursue a different immigration remedy, but this request was denied.

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

Key issues

Whether adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence
Whether due process was violated by denial of access to records
Scope of appellate review limited to grounds relied upon by the Board of Immigration Appeals

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rogaciano Cabrera-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility determination based on Cabrera-Valencias statements to immigration officials that he did not fear returning to Mexico and his vague testimony about the PRD political party. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). We do not consider Cabrera-Valencias contentions concerning the origins of the Knights Templar and his brothers’ disappearances. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Cabrera-Valencias withholding of removal claim fails.

Cabrera-Valencias contention that his right to due process was violated by not being able to access records fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Cabrera-Valencias request to remand to clarify testimony and apply for adjustment of status is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.