Wilson Arrivillaga-Ramos v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILSON ARRIVILLAGA-RAMOS, No. 15-72335
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-070-621
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Wilson Arrivillaga-Ramos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Arrivillaga-Ramos’s testimony, his medical
record, and the police report regarding the date he was attacked and kidnapped.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Arrivillaga-Ramos’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that the non-testimonial evidence
provided by Arrivillaga-Ramos does not otherwise establish eligibility for relief.
See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support
claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Arrivillaga-
Ramos’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this disposition, we need not reach
his remaining contentions regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
2 15-72335
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Arrivillaga-Ramos’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Arrivillaga-Ramos 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 in
Guatemala. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72335