FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR SAAVEDRA- No. 13-73400
MARTINEZ, AKA Cesar Galvan
Martinez, Agency No. A073-946-253
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Saavedra-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 and
*
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).
withholding of removal. 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.
Even if Saavedra-Martinez’s asylum application were not time-barred,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on
Saavedra-Martinez’s prior fraudulent asylum application, fraudulent NACARA
application and interview, and his inconsistent testimony about whether he knew
about the fraud and possessed a copy of the fraudulent asylum application. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046 (inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony supported
adverse credibility finding); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050-51
(9th Cir. 2008) (prior fraudulent application supported adverse credibility finding);
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent
documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from
persecution do support an adverse inference”). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s conclusion that Saavedra-Martinez failed to establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution in Mexico on account of his homosexuality. See Castro-
2 13-73400
Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Saavedra-Martinez’s asylum claim.
Because Saavedra-Martinez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he has
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny Saavedra-Martinez’s request for referral to the Circuit Mediator’s
Office.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73400