WALTER HERNANDEZ-VILLALTA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-71417 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER OMAR HERNANDEZVILLALTA, No. 09-71417 Agency No. A099-653-384 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Walter Omar Hernandez-Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum * 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). and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, applying the new 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 because Hernandez-Villalta made no mention of his political party volunteer work in his asylum application, see Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008), and Hernandez-Villalta also failed to provide any corroboration of his political activities, see Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723-24 (9th Cir. 1997). Hernandez-Villalta s explanations for the discrepancies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Hernandez-Villalta s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-71417

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.