Loja-Paguay v. Barr, 939 F.3d 11

Petitioner Jose Antonio Loja‑Paguay, an Ecuadorian national, entered the U.S. in January 2013 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on police threats and a November 2012 assault.
Loja told a credible‑fear interviewer and submitted an affidavit that one of the police officers who threatened and beat him was the same officer who had killed his father; he fled Ecuador two days after the assault.
At the 2017 merits hearing, Loja testified about the threats and assault but denied (or said he did not recall) that he had been told the officer who beat him also killed his father; he explained he was "confused" or had "forgotten."
The Immigration Judge found this discrepancy implausible and, viewing Loja’s testimony as not credible, concluded he failed to prove past persecution, a nexus to a protected ground, or a well‑founded fear of future persecution; IJ also rejected CAT relief on the record.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ, finding Loja’s explanation unconvincing and that, absent credible testimony or corroboration, he did not meet the burdens for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
The First Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s affirmance of the adverse credibility finding and the denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Loja meaningfully challenged the adverse‑credibility finding before the BIA	Loja contends he challenged the credibility ruling and explained inconsistency as confusion/forgetting	Government/BIA: Loja’s explanation was unconvincing and the BIA properly reviewed and upheld the IJ	BIA did not err; petitioner failed to rebut the adverse‑credibility finding
Whether the IJ’s adverse‑credibility determination was supported	The inconsistency was minor, caused by confusion or memory loss from trauma	IJ/BIA: contradiction about officer who killed petitioner’s father went to a central fact; explanation implausible	Adverse‑credibility finding upheld as supported by substantial evidence
Whether evidence supports asylum/withholding of removal	Loja: testimony and affidavit establish fear of persecution	Government: without credible testimony or corroboration, petitioner cannot meet asylum or higher withholding standard	Denial of asylum and withholding affirmed (insufficient credible evidence)
Whether CAT relief was established	Loja: risk of torture upon return (implied by police threats/assault)	Government: record contains no credible evidence showing torture more likely than not or official acquiescence	CAT relief denied; no record evidence supports likelihood of torture

Rivas‑Mira v. Holder, 556 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (substantial‑evidence review of factual and credibility findings)
Silva v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.) (court must uphold BIA unless reasonable adjudicator compelled to conclude otherwise)
Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (factual findings stand if supported by reasonable, substantial, probative evidence)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. Supreme Court) (an applicant’s testimony can meet asylum burden but agency may discount it if not credible)
Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (adverse credibility determination strips testimony of probative force)
Weng v. Holder, 593 F.3d 66 (1st Cir.) (IJ need not accept proffered explanations for inconsistencies)
Li Sheng Wu v. Holder, 737 F.3d 829 (1st Cir.) (withholding requires higher showing than asylum)
Zheng v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 97 (1st Cir.) (CAT requires more‑likely‑than‑not showing of torture)