Francisco Santana-Aviles v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO SANTANA-AVILES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70998
Agency No. A209-158-373
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Petitioner Francisco Santana-Aviles, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his
application for withholding of removal.1
The BIA’s decision rested on an adverse credibility ruling that is supported
by substantial evidence. Petitioner contended that he faced persecution on account
of his family group, but his position was not consistent with the evidence of his
repeated visits to Mexico and the absence of evidence of recent harm or threats to
his family members. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008)
(determining that the petitioner’s two voluntary return trips to her home country
supported the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding); see also Li v.
Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing the standards governing
adverse credibility determinations).
Any possible jurisdictional challenge due to a defective Notice to Appear is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,
1192-94 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.
1 Petitioner did not appeal to the BIA the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the BIA
accordingly held that claim was waived. Petitioner does not challenge that
determination in his petition, or otherwise specifically address his CAT claim, so
we do not address it.
2

-- 2 of 2 --