Rodolfo Vazquez, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 142 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Rodolfo Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which denied his application for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h) (1994). This court has jurisdiction over Vazquez's petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).¹ 

We review factual and credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, we will reverse "only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). The evidence must not only support but compel this conclusion. See Lopez-Reyes, 79 F.3d at 911.

Here, Vazquez argues that the BIA's finding that Vazquez failed to present a credible account of persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. Vazquez contends that he presented credible evidence that he was attacked and persecuted by the Institutional Revolutionary Party and, thus, established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. We disagree.

The BIA noted that Vazquez failed to include in his asylum application the critical fact that he returned to Mexico and lived there for five months in 1992 after living in the United States since July 1989. Instead, Vazquez reported on his asylum application that, after the alleged persecution occurred in July 1989, "I didn't return home and I decided to come to the United States to seek asylum." This omission was not minor. Cf. Berroteran-Melendez, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256-58 (9th Cir. 1992) (petitioner's omission on his asylum application of the claim that his jaw was broken was not minor). Therefore, we conclude that the BIA, in relying upon this substantial inconsistency, provided a specific, cogent reason for disbelieving Vazquez's testimony regarding his genuine fear of persecution. See id. at 1256-58. This cited reason bore a legitimate nexus to whether or not Vazquez genuinely feared for his safety. See Aquilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1381-82 (9th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, because Vazquez failed to present credible evidence demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution, he failed to satisfy the subjective component of the well-founded fear standard; therefore, he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Berroteran-Melendez, 955 F.2d at 1257-58. As Vazquez is not eligible for asylum, he similarly failed to meet with more stringent standard of proof, which requires a clear probability of persecution, for withholding of deportation. See id., at 1258. For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.