Unpublished Disposition, 930 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Pablo Danilo Rodriguez-Mejia, a Honduran citizen, appeals the Board of Immigration's ("BIA") adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. We review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard. Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1987); Zavala-Bonilla v. INS, 730 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1984). We also review the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for substantial evidence. See Florez-de Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1986). Because we conclude that Rodriguez-Mejia's claims are without merit, we affirm the BIA's decisions.

* Rodriguez-Mejia disputes the BIA's determination that his testimony that he had been kidnapped by guerrilla forces lacked credibility. Rodriguez-Mejia, a former police department investigator, contends that in May 1988, members of the Movimiento Popular de Liberation "Cinchoneros" kidnapped him at gunpoint from a bar, forced him into a truck, and then ordered him to work as an undercover informant for the guerrillas. About ten days after the kidnapping, he said, the guerrillas left a note in his apartment informing him to cooperate with the guerrillas or be killed. Rodriguez-Mejia claimed that he did not report the kidnapping to the police because he said the army would believe that he had worked with the subversives.

The BIA, following the recommendation of an immigration judge, held that Rodriguez-Mejia's testimony relating to the alleged kidnapping lacked credibility. The Board noted that Rodriguez-Mejia had not reported the kidnapping on his asylum application or to the Honduran authorities. In addition, it found inconsistent and incredible his various explanations for not mentioning the kidnapping on his asylum application. During repeated questioning, Rodriguez-Mejia said that 1) he forgot; 2) that he did not have enough room; 3) that he lacked the "capacity"; 4) that he did not know it was important, and 5) that he did not have an attorney when he filled out the asylum application.

On appeal, Rodriguez-Mejia contends that he completed the form without the assistance of counsel or understanding of the asylum process. Moreover, he claims that his testimony was corroborated by a handwritten death threat from the guerrillas, as well as a letter from his mother stating that armed men had come to her home and threatened his life. Accordingly, he argues, the BIA's adverse credibility determination lacked substantial evidence.

Rodriguez-Mejia's claim is unpersuasive. As both the immigration judge and the BIA correctly noted, Rodriguez-Mejia's failure to mention the alleged kidnapping on his asylum application constitutes a material omission. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520-21 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding BIA's credibility determination when petitioner made material misstatements on asylum application). Had Rodriguez-Mejia fled Honduras in response to the kidnapping and threats by the guerrillas, it would have been reasonable for him to have at least mentioned the alleged incident on his application. His inconsistent and contradictory explanations for the omission lend credence to the BIA's determination that his testimony lacked credibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the BIA's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

II

We also reject Rodriguez-Mejia's claim that he met the statutory requirements to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation. To prove eligibility for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42) (A), an applicant must establish a "well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Id. If statutory eligibility is established, the Attorney General may, as a matter of discretion, grant asylum. See Barraza-Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1449 (9th Cir. 1990). Because we agree with the BIA that Rodriguez-Mejia has not met the requirements to prove eligibility for asylum, we need not consider whether he has met the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1). See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423 (1987) (noting that alien must "show that he is more likely than not to be subject to persecution" to qualify for withholding of deportation).

To establish a "well-founded fear of persecution," an alien must meet the subjective requirement of a showing of genuine fear, as well as an objective standard requiring that the fear be reasonable. See Beltran-Zavala v. INS, 912 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1990). We agree with the BIA that Rodriguez-Mejia has failed to meet his evidentiary burden. Because Rodriguez-Mejia's claim that he was kidnapped and threatened by guerrilla forces lacked credibility, he is required to provide corroborative evidence of fear of persecution. See Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1985). The primary evidence Rodriguez-Mejia provides is a handwritten note he allegedly received from the guerrillas, and a letter he asked his mother to write in support of his application. His mother wrote that armed men had come to her home several times looking for Rodriguez-Mejia. The letter did not explain who the men were or why they allegedly were looking for Rodriguez-Mejia.

In analyzing a threat of persecution, we must recognize that " [t]he probative value of a threat depends upon 'whether there is a reason to take [it] seriously.' " Lazo-Majano v. INS, 813 F.2d 1432, 1439 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1277, 1285 (9th Cir. 1984)). Without probative evidence that the kidnapping occurred or some reason to link the alleged visit by armed men to the guerrilla forces, there is little reason to believe that the threats to Rodriguez-Mejia were credible. As we stated in Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988), to determine whether there is a "reasonable possibility" that the threats would be carried out, "we examine the ... will or ability [of the perpetrators] to carry out the threats, not simply whether threats were made." Rodriguez-Mejia has failed to provide probative evidence that the Cinchoneros had reason to or the will to persecute Rodriguez-Mejia. Nor has he shown that any alleged threats were "on account of" political opinion. His work as a police officer, without more, does not establish persecution on account of political opinion or imputed political opinion. Accordingly, we hold that the BIA's determination that Rodriguez-Mejia failed to prove statutory eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.