FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO GASPAR-JUAN, No. 11-71985
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-212-097
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
On March 25, 2015, the court granted the respondent’s unopposed motion to
stay proceedings. On April 13, 2015, the respondent informed the court that Pedro
Gaspar-Juan is not a candidate for prosecutorial discretion, and requested that this
case move forward. The stay of proceedings is hereby lifted.
*
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).
Gaspar-Juan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies in the record regarding whether gang members
physically harmed Gaspar-Juan. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the circumstances standard);
see also Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (inconsistency between testimony and
application regarding injuries petitioner received went to heart of claim). The
agency reasonably rejected Gaspar-Juan’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of
credible testimony, Gaspar-Juan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Gaspar-Juan does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he
2 11-71985
waived appeal of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71985