LUIS ALCIDES GUZMAN-NERIO, AKA Alfredo Miranda v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALCIDES GUZMAN-NERIO, AKA
Alfredo Miranda,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72558
Agency No. A095-079-453
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alcides Guzman-Nerio, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
* 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
JUN 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72558
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
We have 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.
To overturn an adverse credibility determination, we must find that the
evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it. Ming Dai v.
Garland, 9 F.4th 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2021). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination because Guzman-Nerio’s testimony that
he never returned to El Salvador after arriving in the United States was inconsistent
with his passport, which showed a return trip of approximately six weeks in 2000.
The agency was not required to credit his explanation. See Zamanov v. Holder,
649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016,
1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (observing that a history of returning to a country can
support an adverse credibility determination with regard to past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution in that country).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s alternative conclusion that
even assuming Guzman-Nerio were credible, he failed to establish that he would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72558
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground”). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Guzman-Nerio failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --