FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 21 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VASILE RACHITA, No. 14-72671
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-807-328
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The record does not compel reversal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
determination that Vasile Rachita failed to establish a prior admission to the United
States and that he is therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a).
*
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).
Page 2 of 2
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
determination. Rachita has not shown that his testimony described the port of
entry at which he was allegedly admitted to the United States with detail, and
vague testimony may support an adverse credibility determination. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, Rachita fails to identify
evidence that corroborates his account of how he entered the United States from
Canada. As the BIA correctly observed, the choir photo that he submitted does not
indicate when and where it was taken. The other documents Rachita submitted
may corroborate that he was in Canada in 1998, but they do not corroborate the
circumstances of his entry into the United States. Corroboration may be required
for vague testimony regardless of whether the REAL ID Act applies, see Sidhu v.
INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (pre-REAL ID Act), so we need not
decide whether the BIA improperly relied on the Act’s corroboration standards.
We do not reach Rachita’s challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that
Rachita provided inconsistent testimony. The BIA declined to address the issue
because other grounds independently supported the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility determination, and our review is limited to the grounds on which the
BIA relied. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.