Carlos Bonilla-Castillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS BONILLA-CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73214
Agency No. A088-727-533
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District
Judge.
FILED
JUN 21 2022
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 Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the
District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Carlos Bonilla-Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a), and we deny Bonilla-Castillo’s petition.1
We review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT claims for
substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). Therefore, “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence
compels a contrary decision.” Id. Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s
decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action. Khup v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2004).
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. The IJ identified numerous inconsistencies between Bonilla-
Castillo’s testimony and the record. Several of the inconsistencies were non-
trivial, see Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016), and the IJ
gave Bonilla-Castillo sufficient opportunity to explain the inconsistencies, see Rizk
v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled in part on other grounds
1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those
facts necessary to decide the petition.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). The IJ also
observed that Bonilla-Castillo turned red and was “fidgety” during his testimony.
We give “special deference” to these observations. Ling Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). Given the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,
Bonilla-Castillo’s claim for withholding of removal fails because he did not
establish persecution on a protected ground or the other elements of this claim.
2. Bonilla-Castillo also contends that the IJ and BIA “erred in precluding
the Petitioner’s asylum claim.” We disagree. Bonilla-Castillo was in
reinstatement proceedings, and the asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), provides
that an “alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter” if
the alien “reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having
departed voluntarily.” See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1079–80 (9th
Cir. 2016) (holding “[i]t was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude
§ 1231(a)(5)’s prohibition on ‘any relief under this chapter’ forecloses individuals
from applying for asylum relief”).
3. An adverse credibility determination does not necessarily defeat a
claim for CAT relief, but Bonilla-Castillo’s CAT claim fails because “the
remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to carry his burden of establishing
eligibility for relief.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --