Ricardo Lee Mc Carthy v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 460 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO VALENTINO LEE No. 15-70293
MC CARTHY, AKA Joshua Lee, AKA
Ricardo McCarty, Agency No. A205-991-536
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Valentino Lee McCarthy, a native and citizen of Panama, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have jurisdiction 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). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion the agency erred when it
determined there are serious reasons for believing Lee McCarthy committed a
murder prior to his entry into the United States, which constituted a serious
nonpolitical crime barring his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); McMullen v. INS, 788 F.2d
591, 599 (9th Cir. 1986) (agency’s determination that serious reasons exist
“requires only probable cause”) overruled on other grounds by Barapind v.
Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 n.7 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We reject Lee
McCarthy’s contention that the agency ignored his testimony. Thus, Lee
McCarthy’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Lee McCarthy’s testimony of any mention of the
Colombian cartel, and on inconsistencies between his testimony and written
2 15-70293
statement regarding an attack by cartel members, whether he received death
threats, and who told him the cartel put a price on his head. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Lee McCarthy’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Lee
McCarthy does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official in Panama. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, Lee McCarthy’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70293