NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISAAC MATEO ALVAREZ- No. 17-73357 HERNANDEZ, Agency No. A208-149-818 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Isaac Mateo Alvarez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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 created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency between Alvarez-Hernandez’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the date of a shooting, and an inconsistency between his testimony and asylum declaration as to the identity of the gang that threatened him in March 2016. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Alvarez-Hernandez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Alvarez-Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Alvarez-Hernandez does not challenge the agency’s denial of relief under CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 2 17-73357 Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvarez-Hernandez’s CAT claim. We reject Alvarez-Hernandez’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a due process violation, a petitioner must show that defects in translation prejudiced the outcome of the hearing.”). Alvarez-Hernandez’s request to terminate or remand, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-73357 17-73357 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Isaac Alvarez-Hernandez v. William Barr 25 April 2019 Agency Unpublished e46145fb86d8b6ee6ff8d9a04fb185388c737191
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals