ANDERSON DELCI-PEREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-74212 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDERSON JOSUE DELCI-PEREZ, AKA Henry Del Cid Castillo, AKA Anderson Josue Del Cid Perez Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-74212 Agency No. A200-813-760 MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Anderson Josue Delci-Perez, 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 withholding of removal. * 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). 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), and we deny the petition for review. The agency found Delci-Perez not credible based on numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances). Delci-Perez’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, DelciPerez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-74212

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.