Amado Alexander Elias, a.k.a. Hector Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMADO ALEXANDER ELIAS, a.k.a.
Hector Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72236
Agency No. A094-202-103
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Amado Alexander Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAY 23 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 2 --

§ 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on the omission from Elias’s asylum application and affidavit of two incidents in
which gang members beat and physically injured him. See 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.”). The
agency reasonably rejected Elias’s explanations for the omissions. See Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, the record does not
otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Elias will be
tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57
(9th Cir. 2003). Finally, we reject Elias’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider Elias’s risk of torture in the aggregate and that the agency misapplied
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Elias’s CAT claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72236 2

-- 2 of 2 --