Walter Rene Castellanos- Monzon v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER RENE CASTELLANOS-
MONZON,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72434
Agency No. A071-602-585
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District Judge.
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Stanley Allen Bastian, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Walter Rene Castellanos-Monzon (“Castellanos-Monzon”), a citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision dismissing his appeal. The BIA adopted and affirmed the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for relief under the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), asylum and withholding
of removal, and request for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of relief on adverse credibility
grounds. The IJ must provide “specific cogent reasons” for adverse credibility
findings, and the reasons set forth must be “substantial and must bear a legitimate
nexus to the finding.” See Lopez-Reyes v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996).
The IJ gave specific cogent reasons for its adverse credibility finding here: the
Asylum Officer (AO) testified credibly; Castellanos-Monzon’s daughter was fluent
in English and Spanish; he indicated he did not have any trouble understanding his
daughter; a monitor was present who was listening to the interview; his testimony
was read back to him at the conclusion of the interview; the nature of the
inconsistencies were too great to attribute to misunderstanding or
miscommunication; and finally, Castellanos-Monzon explained at the hearing that
he had only observed people being subjected to electric shocks or having a bag
2

-- 2 of 4 --

placed over their heads, contradicting his prior statements. Those reasons were
specific, cogent, and provide substantial evidence to support the IJ’s credibility
determination.
Because we uphold the IJ’s credibility determination, Castellanos-Monzon’s
admission that he participated in the persecution of others supports the United
States’ prima facie case that the persecutor bar applies in this case. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (barring persecutors from asylum), § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (barring
persecutors from withholding of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a) (barring
persecutors from special rule cancellation of removal). Moreover, Castellanos-
Monzon failed to meet his burden of proving that he did not engage in the
persecution of others. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (when the “evidence indicates” that
the persecutor bar “may apply,” the burden shifts to the alien to establish that it
does not apply by a preponderance of the evidence). And the IJ’s conclusion that
Castellanos-Monzon failed to establish past persecution or that he had a well-
founded fear of future persecution is supported by the record; there is no evidence
of torture to support his CAT claim.
Finally, Castellanos-Monzon failed to exhaust his claim before the BIA that
his due process rights were violated. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (noting that a petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA
3

-- 3 of 4 --

deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue). As such, we lack
jurisdiction to consider his due process claims.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --