PADRON ZEQUEIRA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-12No. No. 20-72356

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied.

Eduardo Padron Zequeira, a Cuban citizen, petitioned for judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection claims. The court found substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's determination that Zequeira lacked credibility based on significant inconsistencies in his account of alleged police brutality. Specifically, his description of a November 2018 incident involving police grew increasingly severe across three separate proceedings—from being hit and slapped, to being beaten with batons, to police standing on his knees—without adequate explanation for the escalating details.

The court also found adequate evidentiary support for the agency's conclusion that Zequeira failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation, particularly medical records, to support his claims of injury. His explanation that his doctor could not provide medical documentation was insufficient to establish that such evidence was genuinely unavailable. Additionally, because Zequeira did not raise arguments about the Convention Against Torture claim in his opening brief, he forfeited that issue on appeal.

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

Key issues

Credibility determination based on inconsistent and embellished accounts of persecution
Sufficiency of corroborating evidence to support asylum claim
Forfeiture of Convention Against Torture claim due to failure to raise in opening brief

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Eduardo Padron Zequeira, a citizen of Cuba, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied Petitioners request for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility finding. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). The immigration judge (“IJ”) noted that the extent of Petitioners injuries “seem[s] to expand with each telling.” Indeed, Petitioners description of the events of November 7, 2018—the most severe interaction that Petitioner allegedly had with Cuban officials before he came to the United States—evolved. During Petitioners credible fear interview, he stated that the police hit him in the stomach and slapped him in the face. In his asylum application, Petitioner stated that the police beat him with batons. Then, while testifying in front of the IJ, Petitioner said—for the first time—that police stood on his knees and caused pain that recurs to this day.

Although the omission of details cannot form the sole basis of an adverse credibility finding, Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166–67 (9th Cir. 2000), inconsistencies and embellishments in the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination, Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). Considering that Petitioners basis for seeking asylum is persecution due to political opinion, inconsistent statements about the severity of the harm that he suffered at the hands of government officials rise above the level of mere omission of detail. Petitioners explanations—which fail to explain his omissions—do not compel a contrary result.

2. Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Petitioner failed to present sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony or independently meet his burden of proof. Petitioner provides no explanation for why he lacks medical documentation to support his claim. In his briefing, Petitioner relies on his testimony before the IJ where he stated that “[his doctor was] only able to do a certificate like as an employer because otherwise they are not able to do it.” This comment does not compel us to conclude that corroborating evidence is unavailable to Petitioner. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

3. In his opening brief, Petitioner did not argue that the BIA erred in rejecting his claim for CAT protection. Therefore, Petitioner has forfeited that issue. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

PETITION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL DENIED AS MOOT.

FOOTNOTES

. The IJ also found it implausible that petitioner could have a grown adult stand on his knee but not require medical attention.

. The IJ also found petitioners demeanor “evasive,” a finding that Petitioner does not challenge.