Miguel Garcia-Mora v. Jefferson Sessions, 682 F. App'x 567

Miguel Angel Garcia-Mora, a Mexican national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an Immigration Judge denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
The BIA also denied Garcia-Mora’s subsequent motion to reopen removal proceedings based on newly submitted evidence (an I-94).
The Ninth Circuit reviews factual findings for substantial evidence (REAL ID Act standards) and BIA denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion.
The agency found Garcia-Mora not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions about past harm and fear of future persecution; documentary evidence was deemed insufficient to rehabilitate credibility.
The BIA concluded the I-94 did not establish a prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), and Garcia-Mora’s prior admissions that he was present without admission or parole bound him.
The Ninth Circuit denied both petitions for review, affirming the adverse credibility determination and the denial of the motion to reopen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency reasonably made an adverse credibility finding	Garcia-Mora argued inconsistencies were minor or explained	Agency argued changing story and omissions undermined credibility	Court: adverse credibility supported by substantial evidence
Whether corroborative documents rehabilitated credibility	Garcia-Mora argued documents supported his claim	Agency argued documents were insufficient to corroborate critical facts	Court: documents did not rehabilitate credibility or independently prove claim
Whether CAT claim was considered by agency	Garcia-Mora contended BIA failed to consider CAT relief	Agency asserted it considered CAT and denial flowed from lack of credible testimony	Court: contention unsupported; no reversible error regarding CAT consideration
Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen for adjustment eligibility	Garcia-Mora argued I-94 showed prima facie eligibility and prior admissions should not bind him	Agency argued I-94 did not establish prima facie eligibility and prior admissions were binding	Court: BIA did not abuse discretion; I-94 insufficient and prior admissions stand

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act adverse credibility standards)
Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission of crucial facts supports adverse credibility)
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (explanations for inconsistencies must compel contrary conclusion to overturn credibility finding)
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (documentary evidence insufficient to rehabilitate credibility)
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (absence of credible testimony defeats asylum and withholding claims)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for BIA denial of motion to reopen)
Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) (government parole and its effect on adjustment eligibility)
Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioners bound by prior admissions absent showing they were erroneous)