GIOVANNI DURAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70469 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GIOVANNI ARISTIDES DURAN, AKA Giovanni Duran, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70469 Agency No. A094-316-243 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Giovanni Aristides Duran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Duran’s omission from his first two asylum applications of information regarding the harm his brother experienced from the MS-13 gang. See Shrestha, 593 F.3d at 1047; Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (an applicant “present[ing] substantially different accounts of mistreatment in successive asylum petitions” can constitute a material alteration sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding). Duran’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70469

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.