Zenon Ponce-Hidalgo v. Loretta E. Lynch , 609 F. App'x 485 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZENON PONCE-HIDALGO, No. 13-71000
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-154-949
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Zenon Ponce-Hidalgo, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). 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 review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies among Ponce-Hidalgo’s asylum applications and
testimony regarding which relatives had problems in Mexico. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding was reasonable under totality of
circumstances, including an inconsistency). Ponce-Hidalgo’s explanations for the
inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Ponce-Hidalgo’s due process claim of IJ bias. See Lata,
204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring prejudice to prevail on due process challenge to
proceedings); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007) (even if
2 13-71000
petitioner shows bias, court cannot find bias was basis for denial of application
where factual record supports denial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71000