Zegarra-Cortez v. Ashcroft
Zegarra-Cortez v. Ashcroft
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination that Zegarra-Cortez did not qualify for a grant of asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. We affirm the BIA’s decision.
Burden of Proof
An alien bears the burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). In order to satisfy the burden for asylum, “[a]n alien must show by credible, direct, and specific evidence an objectively reasonable basis for the claimed fear of persecution.” Id. The burden for withholding of removal is higher; an alien must demonstrate a “clear probability” that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened upon returning home. Id. Therefore, if ZegarraCortez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, then he necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Credibility
We review credibility findings of the IJ/ BIA under a “substantial evidence” standard. Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1149. This is an extremely deferential standard that requires upholding the IJ/BIA’s findings unless the record suggests a reasonable finder of fact would be compelled to reach a contrary result. Id.
The IJ determined that Zegarra-Cortez “was not a particularly credible witness.” The court found Zegarra-Cortez’s testimony regarding key events to be “lacking in meaningful detail as well as plausibility.” These determinations are supported by the record.
Zegarra-Cortez did not appeal the finding that he failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hernando Fidel ZEGARRA-CORTEZ v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General
- Status
- Published