Pedro Melendez v. Merrick Garland

facts. The omission from Melendez’s written application of this alleged killing,

which the IJ stated was “one of the most important parts to his claim,” is not a mere

“detail,” but instead tells “a much different—and more compelling—story of

persecution than the initial application,” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185

(9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The record thus does not “compel the conclusion that

the omission[] [was] immaterial.” Id. at 1186 (quoting Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,

1057 (9th Cir. 2020)). The credibility finding was supported under the “totality of

the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135

(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

2. Nor did the BIA err in upholding the IJ’s determination that Melendez

failed to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claims. “[W]here it is

reasonable to expect corroborating evidence for certain alleged facts pertaining to

2 the specifics of an applicant’s claim, such evidence should be provided,” or an

explanation should be given as to why it was not. In re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722,

725 (BIA 1997) (en banc). Melendez claimed that two of his relatives were killed

by…