Christian Molina Camacho v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTIAN MOLINA CAMACHO, AKA No. 16-73255 Christian Molina, Agency No. A205-719-343 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Christian Molina Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). 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. We lack jurisdiction to consider Molina Camacho’s contentions regarding withholding of removal and CAT because Molina Camacho failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of these claims to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677- 78 (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 omissions in Molina Camacho’s two asylum applications and declaration regarding his father’s membership in a taxi union and harm to his brothers, as well as an omission in his father’s letter. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (omissions that tell a “much different – and more compelling – story of persecution than [the] initial application” can properly form the basis for an adverse credibility finding (quoting 2 16-73255 Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011))). Molina Camacho’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, in the absence of credible testimony, Molina Camacho’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Molina Camacho’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 16-73255