NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RUBEN ANTONIO MEJIA-CELAYA, No. 11-73136
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-062-447
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.
Ruben Antonio Mejia-Celaya, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the medical information attached to Mejia-Celaya’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this
court’s review is limited to the administrative record). We deny the respondent’s
motion to strike as unnecessary.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social group of abandoned
street children and related contentions that Mejia-Celaya raises in his opening
brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks
jurisdiction to review issues or claims not raised before the agency). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the
inconsistency in the record regarding whether Mejia-Celaya obtained medical
treatment after being beaten by gang members. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d 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
2 11-73136
received went to heart of claim). The agency reasonably rejected Mejia-Celaya’s
explanation for the inconsistency. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Mejia-Celaya’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims – including his claim for humanitarian asylum –
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mejia-Celaya failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 11-73136