Rodolfo Centeno-Heredia v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO CENTENO-HEREDIA, No. 15-71517
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-102-748
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Centeno-Heredia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1
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 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 in Centeno-Heredia’s testimony and documentary
evidence regarding when he purportedly served as a police officer in Mexico. See
id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the
circumstances). Centeno-Heredia’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency
not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). Additionally, Centeno-
Heredia omitted from his asylum application an alleged shooting and his cousin’s
disappearance. See id. at 973-74 (upholding adverse credibility determination
based in part on omissions which “went to the core of [the petitioner’s] fear”). In
the absence of credible testimony, Centeno-Heredia’s withholding of removal
claim fails. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
1
Centeno-Heredia does not challenge the agency’s determinations that his asylum
application was time-barred and that he failed to establish the requisite continuous
physical presence for cancellation of removal.
2 15-71517
Even assuming credibility, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Centeno-Heredia failed to establish that he would be persecuted on
account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated
by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Centeno-Heredia failed to show he would more likely than not be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71517