NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ANTONIO MELENDEZ, No. 18-71050
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-030-913
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2022**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Antonio Melendez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order by an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The IJ denied relief after making an adverse credibility determination. An
adverse credibility determination may be based on “the consistency between an
applicant’s statements and other evidence in the record.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d
1058, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020). The IJ cited several inconsistencies between
Melendez’s testimony and his written declaration. Most significantly, the IJ
observed that, although Melendez testified that his uncle was kidnapped and killed
by guerrillas in 1982, his written application for asylum made no mention of these
facts. The omission from Melendez’s written application of this alleged killing,
which the IJ stated was “one of the most important parts to his claim,” is not a mere
“detail,” but instead tells “a much different—and more compelling—story of
persecution than the initial application,” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185
(9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The record thus does not “compel the conclusion that
the omission[] [was] immaterial.” Id. at 1186 (quoting Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1057 (9th Cir. 2020)). The credibility finding was supported under the “totality of
the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).
2. Nor did the BIA err in upholding the IJ’s determination that Melendez
failed to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claims. “[W]here it is
reasonable to expect corroborating evidence for certain alleged facts pertaining to
2
the specifics of an applicant’s claim, such evidence should be provided,” or an
explanation should be given as to why it was not. In re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722,
725 (BIA 1997) (en banc). Melendez claimed that two of his relatives were killed
by guerrillas. Yet, he provided no documentary evidence corroborating the alleged
killings. And, although Melendez claimed the threats to his family by guerrillas
came in the form of written notes, he did not provide any of these written threats.
The agency could conclude that Melendez “has not shown unavailability on this
record.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“No court shall reverse a determination made
by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . . . unless
the court finds . . . that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such
corroborating evidence is unavailable.”).
3. The adverse credibility finding supports the denial of asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT protection because “the remaining evidence in the record is
insufficient” to establish Melendez’s eligibility for relief. Yali Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION DENIED.
3