Juan Raymundo-Velasquez v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2447
___________________________
Juan Raymundo-Velasquez
Petitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: January 11, 2024
Filed: January 17, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Juan Raymundo-Velasquez petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
The BIA denied Raymundo-Velasquez’s request for termination of the
proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and dismissed his
appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on
an adverse credibility determination. Raymundo-Velasquez’s challenge to the
agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s
precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). See also Tino v.
Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
determination. See Yu An Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard
of review). The immigration judge provided specific, cogent reasons for the
credibility determination, including that Raymundo-Velasquez failed to adequately
explain inconsistencies in his statements or provide sufficient corroborating
evidence. See Shazi v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 441, 450-51 (8th Cir. 2021); Kegeh v.
Sessions, 865 F.3d 990, 995-97 (8th Cir. 2017); Ezeagwu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 836,
839-40 (8th Cir. 2008). Because Raymundo-Velasquez based his asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims on the same discredited testimony, the
adverse credibility determination disposed of his claims. See Ali v. Holder, 776 F.3d
522, 528 (8th Cir. 2015).
The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --