EDILCER MIGUEL-LOPEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-71726 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDILCER MIGUEL-LOPEZ, AKA Ruperto Marcos Morales Perez, Francisco Rivera, Oscar Valdez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71726 Agency No. A098-440-226 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Edilcer Miguel-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Miguel-Lopez’s admitted falsehoods in his testimony, his sworn statements, and his previous asylum applications. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (An “applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). Miguel-Lopez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2021). In the absence of credible testimony, Miguel-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71726
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
