FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO RENE HERNANDEZ, No. 11-70593
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-919-120
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Rene Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies between Hernandez’s testimony and his 1994 asylum
application regarding his party affiliation, political activities, and harms suffered.
See Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)
(discrepancies regarding petitioner’s political affiliation went to heart of claim that
she was persecuted on account of her political opinion). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, Hernandez’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Hernandez’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if returned to El Salvador, his CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
2
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion
to remand for purposes of reconsidering his eligibility for NACARA relief because
the expungement of one of Hernandez’s convictions pursuant to Cal. Penal Code
§ 1203.4 did not eliminate the immigration consequences of the conviction. See
Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3