MOLINA CAMACHO v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Christian Molina Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Molina Camacho’s contentions regarding withholding of removal and CAT because Molina Camacho failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of these claims to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on omissions in Molina Camacho’s two asylum applications and declaration regarding his father’s membership in a taxi union and harm to his brothers, as well as an omission in his father’s letter. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (omissions that tell a “much different – and more compelling – story of persecution than [the] initial application” can properly form the basis for an adverse credibility finding (quoting Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011))). Molina Camacho’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, in the absence of credible testimony, Molina Camacho’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Molina Camacho’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.