NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN VALENZUELA-MARTINEZ, No. 14-71865
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-017-004
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges
Ivan Valenzuela-Martinez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
Valenzuela-Martinez’s contention that the IJ erred by not providing him an
opportunity to explain false statements made to immigration authorities is
unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Valenzuela-Martinez’s admissions regarding the false statements and
fraudulent tax information he presented to immigration authorities in connection
with his pursuit of Temporary Protected Status. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see Singh v. Holder,
643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to
immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”).
Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Valenzuela-Martinez’s
asylum claim, even if timely, and his withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 14-71865
Finally, Valenzuela-Martinez’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the
same testimony the agency found not credible, and Valenzuela-Martinez does not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official in Nicaragua. See id. at 1156-57. In light of our conclusions, we
need not reach Valenzuela-Martinez’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71865