Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Wilfredo SANTOS CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-70573

Decided: June 24, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Erika Roman, Attorney, Law Offices of Erika Roman, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner Shahrzad Baghai, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent


Wilfredo Santos Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Santos Camacho's testimony as to the circumstances of his cousin's murder and which family members reside in Mexico, and inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence as to his entries to and departures from the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of the circumstances”). Santos Camacho's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Santos Camacho's CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Santos Camacho does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.


Copied to clipboard