Coloma Johnson v. Holder

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ENRIÏUE COLOMA No. 05-75880

JOHNSON,

Agency No. A095-600-271 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2010 San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Enrique Coloma Johnson ('Coloma'), a native and citizen of Peru,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ('BIA') denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. against Torture ('CAT'). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. y 1252, and

we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the immigration judge's ('IJ') decision

without…

MEMORANDUM *

Carlos Enrique Coloma Johnson (“Colo-ma”), a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision without comment, we review the IJ’s decision. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2006). We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Under this standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Coloma, a retired Peruvian policeman, alleges that a secret paramilitary organization run by Fujimori’s Chief of Intelligence (Grupo Colina) persecuted him for more than nine years by making daily anonymous, threatening telephone calls to his house, arranging for his dangerous job…

concurring:

The immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was founded on impermissible speculation, and the IJ failed to address the petitioner’s explanation for the purported inconsistencies. Thus, I cannot agree that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir.2004) (“An adverse credibility finding is improper when the IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for a discrepancy or inconsistency.”); see also Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1201-02 (9th Cir.2004) (IJ speculated impermissibly as to why applicant did not apply for asylum immediately upon entry).

However, substantial evidence does support the IJ’s alternative holding denying *743 relief on the merits. Therefore, I concur in the denial of the petition for review.