JOSE CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose
Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73568
Agency No. A205-310-240
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Contreras-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73568
under 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Contreras-Castro’s omission of a knife attack from his written statement
and his testimony on direct and cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances.”); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission
of crucial facts from application constituted substantial evidence supporting
adverse credibility determination). Contreras-Castro’s explanation for the
omission does not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245
(9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Contreras-
Castro’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Contreras-Castro’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73568
Mexico. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --