JOSE CONTRERAS-CASTRO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73568 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 3 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73568 Agency No. A205-310-240 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jose Contreras-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Contreras-Castro’s omission of a knife attack from his written statement and his testimony on direct and cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances.”); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission of crucial facts from application constituted substantial evidence supporting adverse credibility determination). Contreras-Castro’s explanation for the omission does 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, ContrerasCastro’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Contreras-Castro’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to 2 14-73568 Mexico. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73568
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.
