Siquina-Chox, et al v. Holder, No. 06-72530 (9th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 16 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JERONIMO DAVID SIQUINA-CHOX, Petitioner, No. 06-72530 Agency No. A070-918-992 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009 Portland, Oregon Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.** Jeronimo David Siquina-Chox petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming an Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review. The IJ identified specific and cogent reasons to support his adverse credibility finding. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2004). He properly relied on both Siquina-Chox s initial omission of the guerrillas as a source of persecution and his failure, upon being reminded of his past statements about the guerrillas, to give an account consistent with those past statements. Because these discrepancies regarding the source of his persecution go to the heart of the asylum claim, the IJ s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir. 1990). We need not decide whether guidelines issued by the United Nations and the Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding the treatment of minor asylum applicants apply here, because the IJ s treatment and evaluation of Siquina-Chox, who was 17 at the time of the relevant events and 28 at the time of the hearing, would not have violated those guidelines. The petition for review is DENIED. 2

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.