United States v. 2024-01-18 | 22-136 | HERNANDEZ-VASQUEZ V. GARLAND | nonprecedential | memorandum…

1
22-136
ANGEL HERNANDEZ-VASQUEZ
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-136
Agency No. A206-270-955
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 12, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: Richard C. Tallman and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges, and Robert S.
Lasnik, District Judge
Angel Hernandez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. The
* 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 Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 18 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
22-136
Board adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility
finding and denial of Hernandez-Vasquez’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). We will not
disturb an adverse credibility determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37
F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Here, both the IJ and the
BIA reviewed the totality of Hernandez-Vasquez’s circumstances in their decisions,
and the IJ identified specific instances in the record supporting the adverse
credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.
2010).
The IJ highlighted that Hernandez-Vasquez “repeatedly testified falsely under
oath before immigration officers,” stating that “he was a citizen of Mexico and did
not fear any return to his country.” Hernandez-Vasquez does not dispute his
dishonesty but instead argues that these statements should not weigh against his
credibility as they were made while he was detained by immigration officials and in
a “position of extreme vulnerability” where he feared being deported. But when

-- 2 of 4 --

3
22-136
asked about this false testimony during his removal hearing and if he had ever lied
to a United States immigration official, Hernandez-Vasquez answered, “[u]p to now,
I’ve never lied. I’ve never said a lie.” The IJ’s reliance on Hernandez-Vasquez’s
pattern of dishonesty to immigration officials, and then to the Court, is supported by
the record.
Moreover, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding also relied on inconsistencies in
Hernandez-Vasquez’s testimony, including: 1) the date his friend Onofre was killed,
which changed from April to August 2013; 2) the extent of the police interrogation
after he reported a threat; and 3) whether a threatening call he received was from the
Salas family, who stated they murdered his friend for revenge, or, as he stated in his
asylum declaration, it was actually an unknown caller who threatened his life.
Hernandez-Vasquez argues that these inconsistencies are “de minimis” and that the
IJ erred in focusing on minor details that do not go to the heart of his claim.
However, under the REAL-ID Act statutory standard, an adverse credibility finding
may be based on inconsistencies “regardless of whether they go to the ‘heart’ of a
petitioner’s claim,” as long as they are considered under the totality of the
circumstances. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citations omitted).
Here, Hernandez-Vasquez’s inconsistencies are directly relevant to his
asylum and CAT claims, as they bring into question his very reasons for fleeing

-- 3 of 4 --

4
22-136
Guatemala and whether his persecution occurred with the consent or acquiescence
of the State. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Moreover, the inconsistencies in
Hernandez-Vasquez’s story specifically cited by the IJ corroborate his history of
misleading the United States government to obtain immigration benefits—further
supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1039–48. In light of this record, we find the BIA did not err as the IJ's adverse
credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, Hernandez-Vasquez fails to carry his burden to show
entitlement to any relief on his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under CAT.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --