FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ANIBAL CIFUENTES- No. 09-70332
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A097-907-752
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Anibal Cifuentes-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings, Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), applying the new standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act,
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Cifuentes-Hernandez
established changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as
to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
both on the omission from Cifuentes-Hernandez’s asylum application of his
brother’s death and on inconsistencies between his application, his sworn
statement, and his testimony regarding the basis for his claim. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of
circumstances). Further, the agency was not compelled to accept his explanations.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, in the
2 09-70332
absence of credible testimony, his withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In addition, Cifuentes-Hernandez’s CAT claim fails because it is based on
the same statements the agency found not credible, and the record does not
otherwise compel a finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, Cifuentes-Hernandez’s due process claims are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70332