Jesus Pena-Morales v. Loretta E. Lynch
671 F. App'x 457
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jesus Pena-Morales, a Mexican citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident, faced removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for allegedly engaging in alien smuggling.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Pena not credible and concluded he had attempted to smuggle an undocumented child; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- The government introduced a certified transcript of a video-recorded statement; the underlying video could not be located despite government efforts.
- Pena testified and submitted declarations and testimony from his wife; he also argued coercion/duress and various evidentiary errors (failure to produce certain witnesses and the missing video).
- The IJ relied on agent reports, Pena’s admissions, and other evidence; the BIA and Ninth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported credibility findings and the alien-smuggling determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of Pena’s testimony | IJ clearly erred in finding Pena not credible | IJ/BIA relied on records, admissions, and agent testimony supporting disbelief | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility findings |
| Duress/coercion of Pena’s statements | Statements were coerced or made under duress | Record and testimony do not show coercion; regulation cited does not apply | Court rejected duress claim; statements found voluntary |
| Admissibility of transcript without video | Transcript should be excluded because video is missing | Government diligently sought video; transcript admissible and Pena admitted the substance | Court denied exclusion; noted concern over missing recording but found no cause to exclude transcript |
| Unproduced witnesses (agent, alien, friend Martinez) | Failure to produce witnesses denied right to cross-examine and prejudiced Pena | Missing witnesses were cumulative or not shown unreliable; no prejudice shown | Court found no prejudice and upheld use of existing evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for alien smuggling (clear and convincing) | Record insufficient to prove alien smuggling | Record contains admissions and corroborating reports meeting standard | Court held evidence met clear-and-convincing standard; removal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing credibility and substantial-evidence review)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (review principles for administrative credibility findings)
- Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2013) (duress/coercion and voluntariness analysis)
- Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2005) (government’s duty to locate evidence and diligence standard)
- Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (prejudice requirement when evidence or witnesses are missing)
- Perez-Arceo v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (clear-and-convincing standard for immigration consequences)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (review standards in immigration cases)
- Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2015) (clarifying burdens and standards in immigration removals)
- Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995) (proper reliance on reliable I-213 reports)