NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE SANCHEZ LUIS, AKA Felipe No. 16-71739
Sanchez Luis, AKA Felipe Sanchez, AKA
Luis Felipe Sanchez, Agency No. A077-096-497
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Sanchez Luis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
*
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).
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Sanchez Luis’ testimony and written declaration
as to the past harm he suffered in Mexico and omissions about his injuries and
hospitalization. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances). Sanchez Luis’ explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus,
in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Sanchez Luis’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Sanchez Luis’ CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Sanchez Luis does not point to any other evidence
in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
2 16-71739
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. Id.
at 1156-57.
We lack jurisdiction to review Sanchez Luis’ contentions regarding his
membership in a particular social group because it was not raised to the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is
mandatory and jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 16-71739