Calderon Gomez v. Blanche

── Calderon Gomez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 8 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PABLO ANDRES CALDERON GOMEZ; No. 25-2390 EDGNA DANIELA GONZALEZ Agency Nos. AMOROCHO; A. C. C. G., A241-905-325 A241-905-326 Petitioners, A241-905-327 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Pablo Calderon Gomez, his wife, and their minor daughter are natives and citizens of Colombia. They petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) * 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). denial of Calderon Gomez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners’ sole argument on appeal is that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Id. (citation modified). Considering the “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,” substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). The “specific and cogent reasons” identified by the BIA likely support an adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1042. First, the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Calderon Gomez’s reasons for not reporting one incident to the police but later 1 In their reply brief, petitioners ask us to disregard the government’s answering brief because it was originally due on November 3, 2025, but the government did not file it until December 22, 2025. Pursuant to this court’s November 13, 2025 order resetting stayed deadlines, the government’s brief was timely and will not be stricken. 9th Cir. Admin. Ord., Nov. 13, 2025 (“Any filing that was due between November 2 and November 12, 2025, is now due December 23, 2025.”). 2 25-2390 reporting another incident to the police were inconsistent and implausible. Calderon Gomez testified that he did not report one incident to the police because the paramilitary organization was working with the police and he believed that filing a police report may get him killed. But he then testified that he filed a police report after the September 2022 incident because he “saw it necessary” to seek protection from the police. Calderon Gomez’s inconsistent testimony undercuts his claim that he feared retaliation from the paramilitary organization and is material to his claim of persecution. Shrestha, 59