NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WALTER OSWALDO VALDEZ-LARA, No. 13-73040
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-903-296
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Walter Oswaldo Valdez-Lara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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.
Valdez-Lara does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any
challenge to the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). To the extent Valdez-
Lara’s opening brief challenges the denial of withholding of removal, we lack
jurisdiction to consider those contentions. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, Valdez-Lara did not apply for asylum or
cancellation of removal, so we lack jurisdiction to review any contentions in the
opening brief regarding eligibility for these forms of relief. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Valdez-Lara was not
credible due to inconsistencies between his testimony and his asylum application.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (agency’s adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances). Because Valdez-Lara’s CAT claim is
based on the testimony that the BIA found not credible, and the record does not
otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
2 13-73040
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador, his CAT
claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003); see
also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence that
government has been ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal activities
does not establish that public officials are likely to acquiesce in torture).
Valdez-Lara sought to be returned to El Salvador after filing this petition for
review, and his opening brief indicates that he has been removed. Accordingly,
Valdez-Lara’s request for a stay of removal, included in the opening brief, is
denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-73040