United States v. 2020-07-22 | 15-70510 | CHRISTIAN ARCHILA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN ARCHILA, AKA Escalante
Azucena, AKA Luis Macias, AKA Jorge
Oswaldo,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70510

Agency No. A087-432-934

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 22, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Christian Archila, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

*
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

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-70510
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. That evidence includes Archila’s false representations in 2009 and
2014 to immigration authorities that he was a citizen of Mexico. When Archila
made those false representations, he had been in the United States for several
years. He was neither in flight from El Salvador nor trying to secure his entry into
the United States. Cf. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]
genuine refugee escaping persecution may lie about his citizenship to immigration
officials in order to flee his place of persecution or secure entry into the United
States,” but when a person otherwise chooses to lie to immigration authorities,
“[t]hat always counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility
determination.”).
The agency concluded that Archila lied about his citizenship so he would be
removed to a neighboring country and able to return to the United States more
quickly after his removal. Archila’s explanations do not compel a contrary

3 15-70510
conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency
not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). The agency’s adverse
credibility determination is also supported by inconsistencies between Archila’s
testimony concerning his initial arrival in the United States and other evidence,
including the Form I-213 from his previous removal proceedings. We therefore
uphold the agency’s adverse credibility determination, see Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1044, and the resulting denial of Archila’s withholding of removal claim, see
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Archila’s claim for
CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency found
not credible, and Archila does not point to other evidence in the record that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION DENIED.