Adan Munoz Renova v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review from the…

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 25-1454
ADAN MUNOZ RENOVA,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_____________________________
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge Patrick J. Ehlers, No. A215-589-495
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and BOVE, Circuit Judges
Submitted Jan. 26, 2026; Decided Jan. 28, 2026
_____________________________
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION*
BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Adan Munoz Renova, a Mexican, came to the United States on
a nonimmigrant visitor visa in 2003 but never left. In 2018, he allegedly sexually assaulted
a drunk colleague and tried to block her from leaving his house. The woman reported the
assault to the police. But when she asked to drop the matter, police honored her request.
The U.S. government put Munoz Renova into removal proceedings. He applied to adjust
his status to a lawful permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. At a hear-
ing on that application, Munoz Renova denied the sexual assault. The immigration judge
found his explanation of the interaction not credible and inconsistent with his own Face-
book messages to the victim. His lack of candor, the judge found, outweighed the positive
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
equities, including his long presence in this country, his marriage, and his lack of other
criminal history. Exercising his discretion, the judge denied Munoz Renova’s application
and ordered him removed from the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed,
holding that his hearing had satisfied due process.
Munoz Renova claims that the immigration judge violated the Fifth Amendment by
pressing him to admit guilt and then penalizing him for refusing to do so. We review his
constitutional claim de novo. Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 405 (3d Cir. 2003). It
falters out of the gate. On the stand, he never invoked his privilege against self-incrimination.
Even in a criminal case, if a defendant is asked about a crime and fails to plead the Fifth,
but instead denies involvement, the factfinder may consider whether the denial was credi-
ble. We know of no authority that preemptively bars such questions or inferences when a
defendant fails to raise the privilege and testifies, and Munoz Renova cites none. Neither
can he stretch the privilege’s scope by recasting his argument in due process.
At bottom, Munoz Renova is really challenging the immigration judge’s finding him
not credible. But we lack jurisdiction to review those credibility findings. See Patel v. Gar-
land, 596 U.S. 328, 338–40 (2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615
F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 2010). We will thus DISMISS the petition for review.

-- 2 of 2 --