Morales-Padilla v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60928 Document: 00515766837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 4, 2021
No. 19-60928 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Elguin Francisco Morales-Padilla, also known as Elwin
Francisco Morales-Padilla,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A098 113 637
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Elguin Francisco Morales-Padilla, a native and citizen of
Honduras, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60928 Document: 00515766837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2021
No. 19-60928
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). He challenges the BIA’s decision to uphold the
immigration judge’s (IJ) determination that Petitioner lacked credibility, and
he contends that he is eligible for asylum despite being previously ordered
removed.
We review the BIA’s decision, and we only consider the IJ’s decision
to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018). Factual findings, including an adverse credibility determination,
are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763
(5th Cir. 2020).
Morales-Padilla contends that his testimony should have been
presumed accurate because a clinical psychologist testified that his working
memory was deficient. The testimony of applicants who are deemed
incompetent, suffer from a mental illness, or suffer from a serious cognitive
disability that affects their ability to provide coherent and linear testimony
should be presumed accurate because any inconsistencies in the testimony
could be “reflective of a mental illness or disability, rather than an attempt to
deceive the Immigration Judge.” Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (quoting Matter of
J-R-R-A, 26 I. & N. Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 2015)). Morales-Padilla, however, is
not entitled to this presumption because (1) he does not claim to be
incompetent and (2) he was able to testify coherently and answer questions
from counsel and the IJ without apparent difficulty.
Morales-Padilla further contends that his adverse credibility
determination was not supported by the record, but the BIA determined that
he lacked credibility based on the implausible nature of some of his
statements and inconsistencies between his testimony and his corroborative
evidence. The adverse credibility determination was supported by “specific
and cogent reasons,” so the record does not compel a finding that Morales-
2
Case: 19-60928 Document: 00515766837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2021
No. 19-60928
Padilla was credible or that no reasonable factfinder could have made an
adverse credibility finding. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
2005). The lack of credible evidence precludes Morales-Padilla from bearing
his burden of proof for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT.
See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 (5th Cir. 2012).
Morales-Padilla also insists that he is eligible for asylum. However, he
is ineligible for asylum because he is subject to the reinstatement of a previous
order of removal. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir.
2015).
Morales-Padilla’s petition for review is DENIED.
3