Gabriel Arroyo Montiel v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL ARROYO MONTIEL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-309
Agency No. A077-219-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Arroyo Montiel petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828
F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-309
The adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en
banc). Arroyo Montiel’s testimony that he feared removal to Mexico based on
incidents that allegedly occurred in 1995 and 1996 was inconsistent with a
written statement he gave at the border in 1998—after the alleged incidents—in
which he stated that he did not fear removal to Mexico and that his motive for
coming to the United States was to seek employment. Arroyo Montiel claims
that the written statement does not accurately reflect his responses to the
officers’ questions. But the immigration judge was entitled to credit the written
statement over Arroyo Montiel’s testimony because it bore sufficient indicia of
reliability, including that Arroyo Montiel had initialed each page and that one of
the officers certified that Arroyo Montiel had been read the statement in Spanish
before he signed and initialed it. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926
(9th Cir. 2020).
Absent Arroyo Montiel’s discredited testimony, the remaining evidence
does not compel the conclusion that he is entitled to withholding of removal or
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --