Evaristo Escobar Peralta v. Merrick Garland
19-70255
| 9th Cir. | Mar 11, 2022Background
- Petitioner Evaristo Escobar Peralta, a Mexican national, sought withholding of removal and protection under the CAT; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial and Peralta petitioned for review.
- Court reviews agency factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard and reviews only the grounds the BIA relied upon.
- The BIA sustained the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies (no early statements of fear in 2012 interviews; I-589 listed one kidnapping but hearing testimony described two; hearing testimony gave materially greater detail than the application), Peralta’s unemotional demeanor, and unresponsive answers.
- Peralta failed to provide convincing explanations for the discrepancies despite opportunities to do so. The IJ and BIA found his testimony discredited.
- With the testimony removed, the record lacked objective evidence of a clear probability of persecution on return to Mexico and lacked proof he would more likely than not be tortured or unable to safely relocate within Mexico.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding and the denials of withholding and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of adverse credibility finding | Peralta: BIA erred in affirming IJ’s adverse credibility determination | Gov: Record inconsistencies, demeanor, and unresponsive answers justify adverse credibility | Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding |
| Withholding of removal (persecution) | Peralta: testimony and history show likelihood of persecution if returned | Gov: With discredited testimony, no objective evidence shows clear probability of persecution | Denied — no clear probability of persecution established |
| CAT protection (torture and internal relocation) | Peralta: likely to be tortured on return | Gov: Record does not show more likely than not to be tortured; he could relocate within Mexico | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA’s CAT denial, including relocation finding |
| Scope of review / grounds relied on by BIA | Peralta: challenges to BIA’s overall denial | Gov: Court should review only the grounds the BIA expressly relied upon | Court limited review to BIA-relied grounds per precedent; BIA did not expressly rely on some ancillary points |
Key Cases Cited
- Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing agency factual findings)
- Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (adverse credibility evaluated by totality of circumstances)
- Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (applicant must meaningfully explain inconsistencies to overcome adverse credibility)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (once testimony is discredited, need objective evidence to show persecution probability)
- Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to grounds the BIA relied upon)
- Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2020) (BIA must expressly rely on a reason for it to supply the basis for denial)