Petronilo Mota v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 788 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            SEP 15 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PETRONILO MOTA,                                  No. 11-70638
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A070-928-033
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 11, 2014**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petronilo Mota petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We
    have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    1.      The adverse credibility finding by the Immigration Judge (IJ) was
    supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mota’s two asylum applications were
    flatly inconsistent. Mota’s testimony before the IJ was also at times inconsistent and
    largely uncorroborated. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility
    determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Dr.
    Camp’s expert testimony relied on Mota’s non-credible testimony. Accordingly, the
    remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to carry Mota’s burden of establishing
    his eligibility for relief.
    2.      The hearing before the IJ satisfied due process. An IJ is authorized to
    “administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the
    alien and any witnesses,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), and is afforded wide latitude in
    conducting hearings. See, e.g., Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 
    320 F.3d 1061
    , 1072 (9th Cir.
    2003). Despite the IJ’s interruptions of his testimony, Mota received a full and fair
    hearing. He was represented by counsel, testified on his own behalf, and presented
    expert testimony. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 
    497 F.3d 919
    , 926–27 (9th Cir.
    2007).
    3.      Because Mota failed to meet the standard for asylum, he necessarily
    cannot satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v.
    Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
    2
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-70638

Citation Numbers: 584 F. App'x 788

Filed Date: 9/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023