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NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2014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