Roberto Julian Galicia v. Loretta E. Lynch
669 F. App'x 892
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Galicia, a Guatemalan national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; BIA denied relief and Galicia petitions for review.
- In his written asylum applications, Galicia stated his father was kidnapped five days after Galicia left Guatemala.
- At the 2012 removal hearing, Galicia for the first time testified he fled because he witnessed guerrillas kill his father when he was a child.
- Immigration officers’ contemporaneous notes and prior interview records indicated inconsistencies about whether Galicia ever returned to Guatemala and about travel to his mother’s funeral.
- The BIA found Galicia not credible based on major omissions and inconsistencies; absent credible testimony, asylum, withholding, and CAT claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported | Galicia: Omission of killing was explainable by youth; officers didn’t properly weigh his age | Government: Major omission and inconsistencies undermine credibility; officers’ notes reliable | Held: Adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether child-witnessed killing required special interpretation | Galicia: Agency should measure harm by impact on a child of his age | Government: Court need not assess persecution-as-a-child because event not proven | Held: No need to apply child-impact standard because testimony found incredible |
| Whether immigration officers’ notes can substantiate inconsistency | Galicia: Singh precludes reliance on officers’ notes | Government: Notes were contemporaneous, under-oath, with interpreters, so reliable | Held: Notes were reliable; Singh distinguished |
| Whether Galicia’s CAT claim survives an adverse credibility finding | Galicia: CAT claim asserted | Government: CAT claim is waived or fails without credible evidence | Held: CAT claim fails because based on incredible testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing credibility findings)
- Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2003) (omission of a dramatic, pivotal event supports adverse credibility)
- Pal v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2000) (major inconsistencies between testimony and application support adverse credibility)
- Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2007) (assessing persecution of children by impact on child’s age)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005) (limitations on using asylum-officer notes to impeach testimony)