Miguel Jimenez Mireles v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL JIMENEZ MIRELES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70871
Agency No. A205-465-493
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: LINN,*** RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 22 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).
*** The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Petitioner Miguel Jimenez Mireles (Jimenez Mireles), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we DENY the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano and also provides its
own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s
decisions. . . .” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and
alteration omitted). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal
conclusions de novo. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.
2020).
1. Even assuming we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s ruling that no
changed circumstances excused the late filing of the asylum application, that ruling
was supported by substantial evidence. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080,
1083 (9th Cir. 2013). The extortion at gunpoint that Jimenez Mireles allegedly
experienced in 2004 was no different in degree from the robbery his wife allegedly
experienced in 2017. See id.
2. Jimenez Mireles argues that the IJ violated his right to due process by
2

-- 2 of 4 --

misapplying the facts in considering whether Jimenez Mireles adequately
demonstrated changed circumstances. This challenge does not raise a colorable
due process claim because the “assertion is nothing more than an argument that the
IJ abused his discretion, a matter over which we have no jurisdiction.” Martinez-
Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
3. In making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ may consider
“demeanor, candor, responsiveness, plausibility, inconsistency, inaccuracy, and
falsehood.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
The IJ determined that when Jimenez Mireles testified, he was vague,
nonresponsive, and not plausible. Jimenez Mireles was also inconsistent regarding
the alleged past persecution he encountered, the dates the events occurred, and his
previous entries into the United States. He also failed to provide requested
corroboration about a bank withdrawal allegedly made by his wife. Finally,
Jimenez Mireles completely omitted from his application the events he described
in his testimony. The BIA adopted the IJ’s findings. On this record, substantial
evidence supports the adverse credibility determination and the denial of
withholding of removal. See id. at 1048 n.6.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. While an adverse
credibility determination is not necessarily dispositive of a CAT claim, Jimenez
Mireles identified no other evidence in the record demonstrating that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured if removed. See id. at 1048. The country
reports describing generalized violence and theft do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See id. at 1049.
The motion for stay of removal (Ninth Cir. Dkt. #1) is denied. The
temporary stay of removal is lifted.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --