Jose Victoriano Jandres- Turcios v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE VICTORIANO JANDRES-
TURCIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73074
Agency No. A070-345-989
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit
Judges.
1. Although Jandres testified that he did nothing to persecute anyone, the
immigration judge (IJ) found Jandres’s testimony about his activities as a Treasury
policeman to be “incredible and inconsistent.” Credibility determinations are
FILED
NOV 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044
(9th Cir. 2010). Jandres first testified that he never detained anyone, but then said
he had. In addition, he claimed that he didn’t remember telling an immigration
officer that he had (1) killed guerillas, (2) interrogated civilians suspected of aiding
guerillas, (3) personally interrogated three indigenous persons for subversion, and
(4) delivered suspected guerillas to the S-2.
Given these inconsistencies, the IJ was justified in discounting Jandres’s
testimony. In addition, Jandres admitted to being a member of the Treasury Police
in El Salvador, known for its human rights abuses, and to turning people over to
the S-2 intelligence unit, where he knew they may have been harmed.
Collectively, this was “sufficient” to shift the burden to Jandres to prove he wasn’t
a persecutor. In re A-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 774, 786 (A.G. 2005) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 930 (9th
Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d).
Because Jandres didn’t offer any evidence beyond his own non-credible
testimony, he didn’t meet his burden of persuasion that he wasn’t a persecutor
under either the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(c)(5),

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
1231(b)(3)(B)(i), or the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act,
Pub L. No. 105-100, Title II, § 203(f)(1)(A), 111 Stat. 2198 (1997).
2. Federal regulations require that “any grant of voluntary departure shall
terminate automatically upon the filing of the petition or other judicial challenge
and the alternate order of removal . . . shall immediately take effect.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.26(i); see Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 2012 WL 5077137,
at *16–20 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (en banc). The stay granted by this court on
December 21, 2009, is lifted; however, if he complies with the requirements of 8
C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), by departing within thirty days, Jandres shall not be deemed to
have departed under the order of removal.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --