Jose Licona-Acosta v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60395 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: ECP, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 11/17/2017 [16-60395]
Date Filed: 09/26/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
September 26, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
JOSE MARIA LICONA-ACOSTA,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 481 438
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Maria Licona-Acosta, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). He contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of relief
based on an adverse credibility determination because it was not supported by
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 09/26/2017
He also argues that the IJ did not consider his educational
background, his nervousness when providing his prior statements, and
translational issues causing inconsistencies.
Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, this court may review the
decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593
(5th Cir. 2007).
The BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Morales
v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017).
An adverse credibility
determination “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from
the record.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A court can rely on any inconsistency
or omission to make an adverse credibility determination so long as the totality
of the circumstances shows the asylum applicant is not credible. Id. at 538; see
Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2012). We will defer to a “credibility
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang,
569 F.3d at 538.
The record does not compel a determination that Licona-Acosta was
credible, and he has failed to show that, under the totality of the circumstances,
no reasonable factfinder could have made the adverse credibility ruling. See
Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-40. In view of the adverse credibility determinations,
Licona-Acosta has failed to show that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
See Dayo, 687 F.3d at 657-59; Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39.
In addition, Licona-Acosta contends that the BIA and IJ erred in finding
that he failed to comply with the regulatory requirement. Under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.47(b), (c) & (d), an alien’s failure to file the necessary documentation to
Date Filed: 09/26/2017
support his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the CAT and to provide biometrics, all within the time allowed by the IJ’s order,
constitutes abandonment of the application.
The IJ may dismiss the
application unless the applicant demonstrates that his failure to file the
necessary documents was the result of good cause. § 1003.47(c).
The IJ advised that Licona-Acosta would be required to comply with the
security and biometrics requirements and that his application could be denied
if he failed to do so without reasonable cause; Licona-Acosta stated that he
understood. Although Licona-Acosta submitted a receipt dated April 1, 2013,
stating that he complied with the biometrics requirements, the results were
not current as of the date of the August 2014 hearing. The IJ advised LiconaAcosta to update the information by October 6, 2014, or the IJ could deem the
applications abandoned. The IJ acted in accordance with the plain language
of these regulations, and Licona-Acosta has not shown an abuse of discretion
in connection with the IJ’s decision or the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. See
§ 1003.47(c); Velazquez-Dias v. Holder, 550 F. App’x 249, 249-50 (5th Cir.
2013). Accordingly, Licona-Acosta’s petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?