NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL GONZALEZ JUAREZ, No. 16-73122
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-052-394
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Gonzalez Juarez, 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
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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 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 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Gonzalez Juarez’s declaration of police involvement in
his kidnapping, and on an inconsistency between Gonzalez Juarez’s testimony and
his declaration as to whether he was robbed. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Gonzalez
Juarez’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Gonzalez Juarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Gonzalez Juarez’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the
same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise
compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to Mexico. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73122