Carlos Bonilla-Castillo v. Merrick Garland

facts necessary to decide the petition. 2 by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). The IJ also

observed that Bonilla-Castillo turned red and was “fidgety” during his testimony.

We give “special deference” to these observations. Ling Huang v. Holder, 744

F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). Given the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,

Bonilla-Castillo’s claim for withholding of removal fails because he did not

establish persecution on a protected ground or the other elements of this claim.

2. Bonilla-Castillo also contends that the IJ and BIA “erred in precluding

the Petitioner’s asylum claim.” We disagree. Bonilla-Castillo was in

reinstatement proceedings, and the asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), provides

that an “alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter” if

the alien “reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having

departed voluntarily.” See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1079–80 (9th

Cir. 2016) (holding “[i]t was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude

§ 1231(a)(5)’s prohibition on ‘any relief under this chapter’ forecloses individuals

from applying for…