Jodel Jean v. MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JODEL JEAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71131
Agency No. A209-867-665
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, ***
District Judge
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jodel Jean appeals a final removal order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing his appeal of a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
Jean’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition.
Jean challenges the agency’s adverse credibility determination and argues that
the translation of his hearing was incompetent and that he met his burden of proof
to receive asylum. Alternatively, he requests a new hearing with a competent
interpreter. We review the constitutional due process claim de novo, Padilla-
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014), and agency findings of fact
for substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992).
BIA rested its adverse credibility determination on several grounds detailed
by the IJ. Jean relied on the referenced police reports and court documents
purporting to be official and descriptive of Jean’s harassment in Haiti, but the BIA
and the IJ determined they were facially unreliable. Jean neither explains the
discrepancies in the documents nor argues their insufficiency. Under the totality of
the circumstances, the unexplained discrepancies in these documents are sufficient
to support the adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Jean’s due process argument relies primarily on various “untranslated”
references in the transcript. Jean identifies no missing words, misunderstandings, or
translation errors that affected the outcome, and he did not object to the translation
during the hearing. The transcript reveals Jean participated coherently, meaningfully
and responsively in his hearing, and no translation prejudice is shown. Hartooni v.
INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1994).
Without Jean’s discredited testimony, he cannot meet his burden of
establishing entitlement to asylum, withholding, or CAT protection. We therefore
uphold the agency’s determination that Jean is not eligible for relief.
PETITION DENIED.
Issuance of the mandate shall be stayed for ninety (90) days.

-- 3 of 3 --