FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIANO RAMIREZ-PABLO, No. 10-72251
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-578-808
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Mariano Ramirez-Pablo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, 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.
Ramirez-Pablo does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he conceded his
claim for asylum was time-barred. Accordingly, we deny his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Ramirez-Pablo’s written application of the assault and
based on the inconsistency between his testimony and his application regarding
whether his father was killed. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th
Cir. 2011) (omission of incidents of arrest and mistreatment went to core of alleged
fear); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
totality of circumstances). Further, the agency was not compelled to accept
Ramirez-Pablo’s explanations for these discrepancies. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at
974. Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Ramirez-Pablo’s
withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Ramirez-Pablo’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same
statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other
2 10-72251
evidence in the record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not
he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72251