Varela v. Gonzales , 382 F. App'x 612 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIRANDA VARELA, No. 07-70979
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-534-635
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Miranda Varela, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 and
withholding of removal, and of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse
credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001),
and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Varela’s testimony that civil defense force members attacked him in 1994
was inconsistent with his statement in his asylum application that the attack
occurred in 2001. In addition, his testimony was internally inconsistent regarding
whether members of the civil defense force killed his grandfather and mother.
These inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d
738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Varela failed to
establish that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Varela’s motion to reopen,
because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad
discretion in determining the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-70979