Miguel Araujo v. Merrick Garland
20-70776
9th Cir.Jul 15, 2021Background:
- Miguel Araujo, a Mexican national, petitioned for review after denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection.
- Immigration authorities found Araujo not credible, principally because he repeatedly omitted an alleged assassination attempt from earlier statements and his written declaration.
- Araujo argued his medical conditions caused memory lapses and that the totality of circumstances supported his credibility.
- He submitted documents showing his brother and several colleagues were killed or kidnapped in Mexico, and two witnesses testified on his behalf; motives and perpetrators were not identified.
- The agency relied on significant omissions and discrepancies between oral and written testimony; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency’s adverse credibility and relief denials for substantial evidence.
- The court denied the petition, concluding the record did not compel credibility, withholding, or CAT relief findings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Araujo: medical conditions caused forgetfulness; totality favors credibility | Government: omissions/discrepancies undermine testimony | Court: agency’s adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; credibility not compelled |
| Withholding of removal (persecution on protected ground) | Araujo: killings/kidnappings of relatives/colleagues show likelihood of persecution | Government: evidence doesn’t identify perpetrators or motives tied to a protected ground; some similar actors unharmed | Court: record does not compel a clear probability of persecution; withholding denied |
| Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief | Araujo: same factual evidence plus country conditions make torture likely | Government: general country-condition problems insufficient to show more-likely-than-not torture of Araujo | Court: record and country evidence do not compel CAT relief; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of substantial-evidence review for adverse credibility)
- Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard for withholding of removal review)
- Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2020) (requiring clear probability of threat for withholding)
- Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT ‘‘more likely than not’’ torture standard)