Daniel Saravia Romero; Angela Ortiz Hernandez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL SARAVIA ROMERO;
ANGELA ORTIZ HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71115
Agency Nos. A094-377-273
A094-812-137
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Saravia Romero and Angela Ortiz Hernandez, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
including adverse credibility findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039
(9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Romero and Ortiz do not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that
their asylum applications were untimely, and that they failed to establish changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimeliness. Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review as to their asylum claims.
With respect to Romero’s withholding of removal claim, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on
Romero’s omission from his declaration that the gang members he fears are the
same former guerrilla members who had previously attempted to recruit him. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution
are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). Romero’s explanations
do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). We reject Romero’s contention that the IJ did not provide a reason for her
adverse credibility finding. Apart from this, Romero does not challenge the
agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. Thus, in the absence of
08-71115 2

-- 2 of 3 --

credible testimony, Romero’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
With respect to Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that she failed to establish that a protected ground
was or would be at least one central reason for her past mistreatment or fear of
returning to El Salvador. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th
Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, a protected ground must be “one central
reason” for an applicant’s persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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, Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-71115 3

-- 3 of 3 --