Angel Cruz-Juarez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL CRUZ-JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72249
Agency No. A087-966-497
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Angel Cruz-Juarez, 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 evidence
* 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 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72249
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 deny the petition for review.
The BIA found Cruz-Juarez not credible based on discrepancies in his
testimony and application as to the events leading to his father’s arrest. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1046-47
(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s
claim [under the REAL ID Act], when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim
it doubtless is of great weight.”); id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances”). Even if Cruz-Juarez’s explanations for the
discrepancies were plausible, they do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony
in this case, Cruz-Juarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Juarez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --