SANTOS CAMACHO v. GARLAND (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agencies' adverse credibility determination and their resulting denial of the Convention Against Torture claim.

Wilfredo Santos Camacho, a Mexican national, sought review of a decision denying him protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge had rejected his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial. Santos Camacho challenged this outcome, arguing the agencies' conclusions were not supported by the evidence. The court reviewed the case using the substantial-evidence standard and the credibility-determination rules established by the REAL ID Act.

The court found that substantial evidence supported the agencies' determination that Santos Camacho was not credible. His testimony contained inconsistencies regarding details of his cousin's murder, which family members lived in Mexico, and his travel history to and from the United States. Documentary evidence contradicted some of his statements. The court concluded that his explanations for these discrepancies did not justify overturning the credibility finding.

Because the agencies found Santos Camacho's testimony unreliable, they properly rejected his Convention Against Torture claim, which relied entirely on that testimony. Santos Camacho failed to identify any other evidence in the record showing it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government or with its consent if returned. Consequently, his petition was denied.

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

Key issues

Credibility assessment of applicant's testimony under REAL ID Act standards
Internal inconsistencies in testimony regarding cousin's death and family residence
Discrepancies between testimony and documentary evidence of border entries and exits
Sufficiency of evidence for Convention Against Torture protection claim

Procedural posture

Santos Camacho petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of his Convention Against Torture deferral 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.