Hermes G. Villar Guzman v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMES G. VILLAR GUZMAN;
MARCELINA VILLAR; JESSY P.
VILLAR BERROCAL; MARIA DEL
PILAR VILLAR BERROCAL,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-77318
Agency Nos. A070-923-176
A070-923-177
A070-923-178
A070-923-179
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District
Judge.**
FILED
MAY 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Hermes G. Villar Guzman, Marcelina Villar, Jessy P. Villar Berrocal and
Maria Del Pilar Villar Berrocal petition for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We assume familiarity with the facts, prior proceedings and issues
presented. Because the BIA adopted the reasoning of the immigration judge (“IJ”),
we review the latter’s decision. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1210
(9th Cir. 2004).
I
The IJ’s finding that Hermes was not credible was supported by substantial
evidence. Hermes’s testimony before the IJ that he left the military in 1981 was
inconsistent with his statements in his written asylum application and asylum
interview that he served until 1991.
This inconsistency goes to the heart of petitioners’ asylum claim because
“[p]ersecution occurring because a person is a current member of a police force or
the military . . . is not on account of one of the grounds enumerated in the
[Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029
(9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). If Hermes was

-- 2 of 4 --

3
still in the military when the threats from Sendero Luminoso allegedly
commenced, he cannot establish that he was targeted as a former soldier.
The IJ adequately addressed Hermes’s proffered explanations for the
inconsistency, reasoning that nervousness and confusion at the asylum interview
did not justify Hermes’s failure to correct the ten-year discrepancy before the
asylum officer. In light of Hermes’s admitted understanding of his obligation to
tell the asylum officer the truth, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
II
We find no merit in petitioners’ contention that the IJ should have “probed
the record” for corroboration of Hermes’s testimony by questioning Marcelina as
to Hermes’s discharge date. Petitioners’ counsel presented Marcelina as a witness,
and the IJ in no way interfered with his ability to elicit her testimony on any
subject. In any event, Marcelina adopted Hermes’s testimony in its entirety. As a
result, her testimony is also inconsistent with Hermes’s prior statements and relies
solely on his explanations for the inconsistency. In these circumstances, the IJ was
not required to separately assess Marcelina’s credibility.
III
There is no evidence that the IJ was biased. His adverse credibility
determination was, as explained above, based entirely on legitimate considerations.

-- 3 of 4 --

1 Because we uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we do not
reach his alternative conclusions that, even accepting Hermes’s testimony as true,
petitioners failed to establish eligibility for the relief they sought.
4
We are also satisfied that the IJ considered the entire record, including petitioners’
background evidence and Hermes’s pre-hearing declaration. Thus, the IJ did not
violate petitioners’ due-process rights to “a full and fair hearing of [their] claims
and a reasonable opportunity to prevent evidence on [their] behalf.” Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
IV
Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by
substantial evidence and comported with due process, petitioners cannot satisfy
their burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or
relief under CAT.1 Accordingly, their petition for review is
DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --