NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2138
______
LAZARO BERNABE MENDEZ-AMBROSIO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A201-785-542)
Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Golparvar
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 15, 2021
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 5, 2021)
___________
OPINION*
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.
Lazaro Mendez-Ambrosio, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States
without inspection in March 2019. He was detained upon his arrival, and he sought
asylum as well as withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
based on a fear of violence by members of a gang who murdered his brother in 2010. See
generally 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (providing for asylum); id. § 1231(b)(3) (providing for
withholding of removal). For similar reasons, he also sought protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (providing for CAT
withholding); id. § 208.17 (providing for CAT deferral). After an unsuccessful hearing
before an Immigration Judge, Mendez-Ambrosio appealed to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, which issued a final order denying him all relief. Mendez-Ambrosio then
timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s final order, bringing this matter within the
jurisdiction of this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
The problem with Mendez-Ambrosio’s asylum and INA withholding claims is that
the Immigration Judge determined that he was not credible. Mendez-Ambrosio delivered
inconsistent accounts of the night of his brother’s death, the timing and circumstances of
the deaths of his two brothers-in-law, and the extent of his interaction with Guatemalan
police. On administrative appeal, the BIA affirmed, explaining that “[a] persecution
claim that lacks veracity cannot satisfy the burdens of proof and persuasion necessary to
establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.” BIA Decision at 2 (AR 4).
In reviewing those determinations under the substantial-evidence standard, an
Immigration Judge’s credibility determinations receive “exceptional deference.”
2
Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2017). And nothing about Mendez-
Ambrosio’s proffered explanations for his inconsistent statements compels a conclusion
that the Immigration Judge erred in assessing Mendez-Ambrosio’s credibility. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Mendez-Ambrosio’s claim for CAT relief fares no better. Both the Immigration
Judge and the BIA concluded that Mendez-Ambrosio did not demonstrate that it was
more likely than not that he would be tortured in Guatemala with acquiescence of
Guatemalan authorities. See generally Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515–17 (3d
Cir. 2017). The administrative record details how Guatemalan authorities successfully
prosecuted the murder of his brother: they arrested, charged, and tried those responsible
for that killing. Without record evidence compelling a contrary conclusion, the BIA’s
order satisfies the substantial-evidence standard in this respect as well. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
3