NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO CABRERA, No. 16-71577
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-977-601
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 24, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Antonio Cabrera seeks review of a final administrative order
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Cabrera argues that (1) substantial evidence
does not support the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding; (2)
*
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).
substantial evidence does not support the agency’s determination that he is not
entitled to CAT relief; and (3) the immigration judge’s conduct during his removal
proceedings violated his right to due process. We deny the petition for review.
1. The immigration judge found Cabrera not to be credible because of
significant inconsistencies in his story with respect to dates and other key events,
and because his in-court testimony included compelling stories that were not
referenced in his asylum application. Substantial evidence supports this finding
because at least some of these inconsistencies and omissions go to the heart of
Cabrera’s claim, which is governed by pre-Real ID Act standards. Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2011); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259
(9th Cir. 2003). Without credible testimony, Cabrera’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
2. Even without the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding,
Cabrera failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
if returned to El Salvador. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. Andrade v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015).
3. Cabrera bases a due process claim on several comments made by the
immigration judge that he contends show bias. But the comments in question
merely show an immigration judge seeking to guide the proceedings in an
2
appropriate and efficient way. Moreover, Cabrera has not shown that any of the
immigration judge’s conduct “affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). We therefore reject Cabrera’s due
process claim. Id.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3
Jose Cabrera v. William Barr
Combined Opinion