Isaac Mateo Alvarez- Hernandez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC MATEO ALVAREZ-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73357
Agency No. A208-149-818
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73357
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 of 3 --

3 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 of 3 --