Santos Par-Jiatz v. Merrick Garland, 20-72980

Petitioner Santos Par-Jiatz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought asylum and withholding of removal; an IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
The BIA upheld an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Par-Jiatz’s oral testimony and his written personal statement about who in his family received gang threats, whether the police were contacted, and omissions about hardships tied to his indigenous status.
Par-Jiatz filed for withholding of removal after May 11, 2005, so the IJ was required to assess credibility under the "totality of the circumstances" standard.
Par-Jiatz also challenged the IJ’s denial of asylum as untimely, but the Ninth Circuit found that claim waived for lack of developed argument in his opening brief.
The BIA affirmed denial of withholding of removal, relying in part on the adverse credibility determination.
The panel concluded the IJ failed to inform Par-Jiatz of apparent eligibility for post-conclusion voluntary departure; the court remanded to the agency to determine eligibility for that relief.

Issue	Par-Jiatz's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility finding	Testimony and affidavit were consistent; adverse finding was erroneous	Inconsistencies between testimony and personal statement justified disbelief	Court: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility (inconsistencies were material)
Timeliness of asylum	IJ abused discretion in finding application untimely	Asylum was untimely; petitioner failed to raise preserved argument	Court: claim waived for lack of developed argument in opening brief
Withholding of removal	Merits of withholding independent of credibility; should be granted	Denial proper because adverse credibility undermines claim	Court: denial of withholding affirmed because credibility finding stands
Post-conclusion voluntary departure	IJ failed to inform of apparent eligibility; relief not considered	BIA: no error because petitioner had counsel and did not request it; government asks to rule on eligibility	Court: IJ must inform even if represented; remanded to agency to decide eligibility for voluntary departure

Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard of review)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for credibility determinations after May 11, 2005)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determinations require specific and cogent reasons)
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (permitting consideration of non-trivial inconsistencies and material omissions)
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not argued in opening brief are forfeited)
United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 804 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015) (IJ must inform alien of apparent eligibility for voluntary departure)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (IJ obligation to inform about voluntary departure despite counsel)
Moran-Enriquez v. INS, 884 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1989) (regulation aims to prompt IJ to help alien explore legal avenues of relief)