Montejo Esteban Lucas v. Pamela Bondi

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1). We deny Esteban Lucas’s petition for review.

We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for

substantial evidence. Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021).

Where the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, as it did here, “we review [] the reasons

explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the

IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291,

1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. In his arrival interview, recorded on an I-867A form, Esteban

Lucas informed U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents that he entered the country

“to live and work in California” and that he did not fear returning to his home

country. Esteban Lucas’s statements directly contradict his later testimony to an

asylum officer and before the IJ concerning the alleged threats to his life—the

basis of his fear-based claims. Because Esteban Lucas first “affirmatively denied”

a fear of returning to Guatemala and later expressed…