NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATAN ALEXANDER ORELLANA- No. 15-72589 ABREGO, AKA Jonatan Alexander Orellana Obrego, Agency No. A205-726-006

Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, OWENS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Jonatan Alexander Orellana-Abrego, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his asylum

* 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). application. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We deny the petition for review.

1. Adverse Credibility Determination. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064

(9th Cir. 2020). Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination here. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); Alam v.

Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Soon after entering the United States, Orellana-Abrego gave a sworn

statement to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) agents that he came seeking

employment and that he did not fear return to El Salvador. Orellana-Abrego’s

statement has sufficient indicia of reliability: (1) CBP agents interviewed Orellana-

Abrego in his native language, Spanish; (2) CBP agents placed Orellana-Abrego

under oath; (3) CBP agents contemporaneously transcribed the interview; and (4)

Orellana-Abrego affirmed the accuracy of the transcription by signing it. See

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Singh v.

Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005).

Orellana-Abrego’s sworn statement was inconsistent with his later testimony

to an asylum officer and before the agency that he feared return to El Salvador.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (allowing credibility determinations based on

inconsistent statements). The IJ gave Orellana-Abrego multiple opportunities to

2 explain this inconsistency. The IJ then gave a specific and cogent reason for

disregarding Orellana-Abrego’s various explanations: his demeanor changed when

confronted with the CBP statement. See Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1297–98

(9th Cir. 2022) (holding that IJ’s reliance on demeanor was a specific and cogent

reason for rejecting various explanations of inconsistencies).

The record does not support Orellana-Abrego’s argument that the agency

cherry-picked evidence because it did not credit his later, consistent testimony.

The IJ summarized the evidence and repeated that he considered all the evidence in

reaching his decisions; the BIA also summarized Orellana-Abrego’s testimony.

See Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 739 (9th Cir. 2025) (“[I]f nothing in the record

reveals that the agency did not consider all the evidence, a general statement that

the agency considered all evidence before it shall suffice.”). After considering all

the evidence, the agency decided that the inconsistency of Orellana-Abrego’s

initial statement to CBP agents with his later testimony made that later testimony

not credible. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision. See Li v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding adverse credibility

determination where petitioner affirmatively denied any fear of mistreatment in an

initial airport interview then later asserted a fear of return).

2. Due Process. The court reviews de novo due process claims arising from

removal proceedings. Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2020).

3 First, Orellana-Abrego argues that the agency’s adverse credibility

determination deprived him of an opportunity to have his claim adjudicated. Not

so. Orellana-Abrego received a full and fair hearing on the merits of his asylum

claim. See id. at 1240 (“Due process requires a full and fair hearing, which, at a

minimum, includes a reasonable opportunity to present and rebut evidence and to

cross-examine witnesses.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). When

DHS counsel impeached Orellana-Abrego with his inconsistent sworn statement,

the IJ continued the hearing to allow Orellana-Abrego time to prepare for redirect.

See Benedicto v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding the IJ did

not violate due process where he put sufficient safeguards in place to enable

petitioner to present evidence in support of his claims for relief). The agency’s

determination that Orellana-Abrego was not credible after two full hearings is not

constitutional error. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“Although the IJ showed impatience at times, [the petitioner] had ample

opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the

IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind.”).

Second, Orellana-Abrego argues that the BIA “did not dutifully review this

case” because it erroneously stated that Orellana-Abrego feared returning to

Mexico instead of El Salvador. While this may be error, Orellana-Abrego fails to

demonstrate any prejudice from it. See Cruz, 146 F.4th at 742–43 (denying due

4 process claim where petitioner failed to show prejudice). The BIA’s otherwise

accurate and detailed summary of the proceedings demonstrates that it considered

Orellana-Abrego’s case. See id. at 740 (holding a petitioner must “present clear,

affirmative evidence that the agency did not review the evidence before it”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Without constitutional error or a

showing of prejudice, Orellana-Abrego’s due process claim fails. See Grigoryan,

959 F.3d at 1240.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

5