Background
Petitioner Luis Alonso Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his application based on adverse credibility findings due to inconsistencies in his testimony about who threatened him and his employment history. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, noting Perez failed to identify specific aspects of the credibility analysis he was challenging.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. It found that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was supported by Perez’s internally inconsistent testimony regarding the source of harm and his employment status. Although the petitioner argued he testified credibly, the court held that his general assertion did not meaningfully challenge the specific inconsistencies identified by the agency. The court further noted that claims addressed on the merits by the Board are exhausted. A concurrence agreed with the denial but argued the petition should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust, as Perez did not specify the basis for his claim before the Board.
Our precedent is quite clear, however, that claims addressed on the merits by the BIA are exhausted.
Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 2008)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that petitioners must specifically identify factual errors in credibility determinations rather than making general challenges, and confirms that the Board’s substantive review satisfies exhaustion requirements.