United States v. 2020-07-02 | 18-71312 | WISNEL JOSEPH ESTIME V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WISNEL JOSEPH ESTIME,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71312
Agency No. A209-869-314
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 1, 2020
**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Wisnel Joseph Estime, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal
from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
FILED
JUL 2 2020
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).

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in
part.
“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own
reasons, [we] review[] both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042
(9th Cir. 2011). “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ling
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We review questions of law, including due process claims, de novo.
Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014).
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Estime’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.
2014) (stating substantial evidence standard). The record does not compel the
conclusion that Estime was credible. See id. (stating that courts must uphold
adverse credibility findings unless “the evidence not only supports [a contrary]
conclusion, but compels it”). On several issues, Estime’s testimony was either
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with his prior statements. His explanation
for those inconsistencies was not persuasive.
2

2.Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Estime’s claim for CAT
relief because the record does not compel the conclusion “that it is more likely than
not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
2003) (finding denial of CAT relief supported by substantial evidence where the
petitioner was not found credible).
3.Estime waived his due process claims by failing to exhaust them before the
BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (allowing appellate review of issues only if “the
alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right”);
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion of
due process claims concerning the denial of opportunity to present case and
deprivation of right to counsel); Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“a petitioner cannot obtain review of procedural errors in the administrative
process that were not raised before the agency merely by alleging that every such
error violates due process” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we
lack jurisdiction over those claims and dismiss the petition as to them.
PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
3