United States v. 2020-12-09 | 19-70827 | FERNANDO BASILIO CRISTOBAL V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO BASILIO CRISTOBAL,
AKA Fernando Basilio, AKA Jose
Dominguez-Gonzalez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70827

Agency No. A208-308-136

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Basilio Cristobal, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s 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

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70827
and denying his motion to remand and terminate proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence, 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand.
Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
Basilio Cristobal’s demeanor, the omission of past incidents of harm in Guatemala
from his asylum application, and implausible testimony as to when Basilio
Cristobal first arrived in the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). Basilio Cristobal’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence
of credible testimony, Basilio Cristobal’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light
of this disposition, we do not reach Basilio Cristobal’s remaining contentions
concerning those claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

3 19-70827
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (quoting INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976))).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because,
even if credible, Basilio Cristobal 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
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Basilio Cristobal’s motion to
remand and terminate proceedings, where his contentions that the immigration
judge lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings are foreclosed by Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9
th
Cir. 2019) and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958
F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020).
As stated in the court’s June 6, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.