FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ERICS CAMACHO; MAURO No. 12-70824
ANTONIO CAMACHO,
Agency Nos. A088-107-323
Petitioners, A097-871-633
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges
Jose Erics Camacho and Mauro Antonio Camacho, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, including adverse credibility determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257
F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA addressed petitioners’ contention that the REAL ID Act did not
apply to their claims, and analyzed their claims under the pre-REAL ID standards.
Thus, we reject petitioners’ REAL ID Act arguments.
Jose testified he fears the FMLN and ARENA political parties in El
Salvador and also fears gangs. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on Jose’s omission from his asylum application and
declaration of his participation in FMLN demonstrations, and an incident in which
ARENA members allegedly threatened his life. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d
969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility finding supported where omissions
from original application “went to core of [petitioner’s] alleged fear of political
persecution”). Jose’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Contrary to Jose’s contention, the BIA
did not find Jose failed to explain the omissions. In the absence of credible
testimony, Jose’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-70824
Mauro testified gang members robbed and mistreated him, and that he fears
harm by gangs if returned. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Mauro failed to establish a nexus between his past experiences and fear of future
harm and a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Mauro’s contention regarding political neutrality because
he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004). We reject Mauro’s contention that the BIA applied the incorrect legal
standard or otherwise improperly analyzed his claim. Thus, Mauro’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-70824