Jorge Puchana Fula v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 549 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ELIECER PUCHANA FULA; et No. 10-71049
al.,
Agency Nos. A099-068-548
Petitioners, A099-068-549
A099-068-550
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jorge Eliecer Puchana Fula (“Fula”), his wife, and his daughter are
Colombian citizens applying for asylum due to alleged persecution by drug traffickers
and/or a terrorist group for reporting a money laundering scheme to Colombian
authorities. The IJ denied asylum and the BIA affirmed.
*
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).
First, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
where Fula’s oral testimony was inconsistent with his initial written asylum
application. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056–57 (9th Cir. 2010). Second, the
IJ’s extensive questioning of Fula did not constitute a Due Process violation. See
Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor did interruptions by
the interpreter to clarify translations violate Fula’s Due Process rights. See Gutierrez-
Chavez v. I.N.S., 298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 2002). Third, and most importantly,
Fula’s alleged persecution is not on account of a protected basis. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (2012). Finally, Fula has failed to show that the Colombian
government would remain willfully blind to any attempted torture of Fula because it
continued to offer Fula a bodyguard. Thus he is not entitled to protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.
2003).
The petition is DENIED.
-2-