Rogaciano Cabrera-Valencia v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGACIANO CABRERA-VALENCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72904
Agency No. A078-269-474
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Rogaciano Cabrera-Valencia, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-72904
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 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 Cabrera-Valencia’s statements to immigration officials that he did not
fear returning to Mexico and his vague testimony about the PRD political party.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
“the totality of circumstances”). We do not consider Cabrera-Valencia’s
contentions concerning the origins of the Knights Templar and his brothers’
disappearances. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Cabrera-
Valencia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Cabrera-Valencia’s contention that his right to due process was violated by
not being able to access records fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Cabrera-Valencia’s request to remand to clarify testimony and apply for
adjustment of status is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --