NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILSON ARRIVILLAGA-RAMOS, No. 15-72335 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-070-621 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Wilson Arrivillaga-Ramos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Arrivillaga-Ramos’s testimony, his medical record, and the police report regarding the date he was attacked and kidnapped. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Arrivillaga-Ramos’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that the non-testimonial evidence provided by Arrivillaga-Ramos does not otherwise establish eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Arrivillaga- Ramos’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this disposition, we need not reach his remaining contentions regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). 2 15-72335 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Arrivillaga-Ramos’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Arrivillaga-Ramos does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in Guatemala. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72335 15-72335 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Wilson Arrivillaga-Ramos v. Merrick Garland 15 July 2022 Agency Unpublished 9fb6d39278a173bc1e3623cc84af656ede801d9d
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals