FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 15 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR MARTIN MACHIC- No. 15-70159
RISCAJCHE,
Agency No. A205-081-580
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2018**
Portland, Oregon
Before: FISHER, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hector Martin Machic-Riscajche petitions for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the denial by an immigration
judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s explicit adverse credibility
determination based on the inconsistency between Machic’s asylum application,
which stated he did not know who his Partido Patriota attackers were, and his
testimony, which identified one of those attackers as the mayor’s son. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ confronted
Machic on this inconsistency, and Machic failed to provide a reasonable
explanation. See id. at 1046-48. Machic’s inconsistency is significant. First,
Machic asserts that his persecutors targeted him to work for the Partido Patriota in
the upcoming elections, one of which was for the mayoral race. Second, in his
asylum application and in his testimony, Machic claimed he refused to join the
Partido Patriota because the mayor, a member of the party’s local branch, was
corrupt.
Machic’s post-hoc explanations (which he did not provide to the IJ) do not
compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Machic’s asylum and withholding of removal claims therefore fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Machic also failed to meet his
burden of proof to establish that he “more likely than not” would be tortured if
2
removed to Guatemala. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA properly
denied his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3