FRANCISCO ALVARO-IRAETA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-71287 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO ALVARO-IRAETA, Petitioner, No. 12-71287 Agency No. A071-644-613 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on July 7, 2015. Thus, respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot. Francisco Alvaro-Iraeta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 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). immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Alvaro-Iraeta’s asylum application and his testimony regarding events in El Salvador and his reason for fleeing. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir. 1990); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Alvaro-Iraeta’s contention that the IJ failed to properly consider his explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, Alvaro-Iraeta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Alvaro-Iraeta does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-71287
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
