FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MAURICIO TORRES- No. 13-71353
ROMERO,
Agency No. A098-936-316
Petitioner,
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.
Carlos Mauricio Torres-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
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 between Torres-Romero’s testimony and the police
report regarding when police arrived on the scene to investigate the alleged home
invasion, and whether the police made an arrest. See id. at 1046-48 (inconsistency
regarding underlying events supported adverse credibility determination which was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard).
Torres-Romero was unable to explain the inconsistencies. See id. at 1047. In the
absence of credible testimony, Torres-Romero’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s alternate finding that, even if
he was credible, Torres-Romero failed to establish that he was or would be harmed
on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740
(9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from
2 13-71353
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, we deny the petition for this reason
as well. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71353