CHRISTIAN MOLINA CAMACHO, AKA Christian Molina v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIAN MOLINA CAMACHO, AKA
Christian Molina,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73255
Agency No. A205-719-343
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.
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”).
* 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 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73255
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73255
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.

-- 3 of 3 --