Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Azael Armando Rosales Fernandez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge denied all three applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. He petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, and the court exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The case was submitted without oral argument in Pasadena, California, on October 26, 2026, and decided by an unpublished memorandum disposition on October 28, 2026.
Because the Board agreed with several of the Immigration Judge's findings while adding its own reasoning, the court reviewed both decisions to the extent the Board adopted the IJ's conclusions. Legal determinations are reviewed de novo, and factual findings, including credibility findings, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Reversal is therefore permitted only if the record compels a contrary result.
The Immigration Judge's dispositive ruling was an adverse credibility determination. The IJ found the petitioner's testimonial demeanor evasive and unresponsive, found parts of his testimony inconsistent and implausible, and concluded that the corroborating evidence he offered did not rehabilitate his credibility. The IJ also issued alternative merits denials, which the agency did not defend on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The panel, composed of Circuit Judges R. Nelson and H.A. Thomas and District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín sitting by designation, denied the petition for review. It held that substantial evidence supports the agency's dispositive adverse credibility determination. Demeanor was a central basis: the IJ described the petitioner as evasive and unresponsive, and the court gives special deference to credibility findings grounded in demeanor.
The court also rejected the petitioner's challenge to the findings of inconsistency and implausibility. He acknowledged that he could not explain certain testimony the IJ found not credible, or the exact steps he took to obtain certain documents, yet argued that nothing in those aspects of his claims was inherently incredible. The panel responded that even if it agreed, a reviewing court may not reverse merely because it would have weighed the evidence differently had it been the trier of fact.
The corroboration did not help him. A letter from former neighbors said he had been beaten at a protest, which contradicted his own account that he was not harmed at that event. The IJ also found his testimony about a South African model, whom he claimed was in Venezuela and involved in his political organization, to be patently and knowingly untruthful. Nothing in the record compelled a contrary conclusion. Because the credibility ruling was dispositive, the court did not reach whether he exhausted challenges to the alternative merits denials or the substance of those denials. It denied his motion to stay removal and lifted the temporary stay.
Key Takeaways
- A credibility finding based on demeanor receives special deference, so a petitioner described as evasive and unresponsive faces a steep burden on review.
- An applicant's acknowledgment that he cannot explain parts of his testimony or the steps taken to obtain documents does not defeat an adverse finding merely because he argues the testimony is not inherently incredible.
- Corroborating evidence that contradicts the applicant's own account, such as a neighbors' letter describing a beating he said did not happen, can undermine rather than rehabilitate credibility.
- Where an adverse credibility determination is dispositive, the court may decline to reach exhaustion disputes and alternative merits denials, leaving those rulings unreviewed.
- This unpublished memorandum is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, so it illustrates the standard of review rather than creating new law.
Why It Matters
The disposition is a straightforward application of settled Ninth Circuit principles: the court reviews the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, reverses only when the record compels a contrary result, and will not substitute its own weighing of the evidence. It shows how several modest findings, namely evasive demeanor, unexplained testimony, and contradictory corroboration, can combine to support a dispositive adverse credibility ruling that resolves asylum, withholding, and Convention Against Torture claims together.
The ruling's reach is limited. Because the panel affirmed on credibility alone, it did not decide whether the petitioner exhausted his challenges to the alternative merits denials or whether those denials were correct. The decision is unpublished, carries no precedential weight beyond Rule 36-3, and resolves only this petitioner's challenge. With the stay motion denied, the temporary stay of removal no longer applies.