NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO URIAS-VARGAS; et al., Nos. 18-71006
18-73444
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A208-553-521
v. A208-463-285
A208-463-286
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A208-463-287
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Urias-Vargas, his wife, and their two children, natives and citizens
of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 18-71006) and the BIA’s order denying
their motion to reconsider (No. 18-73444). We have jurisdiction 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review
de novo questions of law, and we review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
of motions to reconsider. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency in Urias-Vargas’s testimony as to the number of times
he paid extortion money to the gang and inconsistencies between Urias-Vargas’s
credible fear interview, asylum declaration, and testimony as to the gang’s
demands and the harm he suffered. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Urias-
Vargas’ 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, we deny the petition for review as to petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims.
2 18-71006 & 18-73444
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ contentions
regarding their proposed social group. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT
claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and petitioners
do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it
is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1048-49.
We deny petitioners’ opposed motion for summary disposition (Docket
Entry No. 10) and deny their motion for leave to file supplemental briefing
(Docket Entry No. 17). 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior order. 8 CFR § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of
fact or law in a prior decision); see also Karingithi, 913 F.3d at 1160-62. Thus, the
3 18-71006 & 18-73444
government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 28) is granted
because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not
to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th
Cir. 1982) (stating standard).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 18-71006 & 18-73444