ANGEL CRUZ-JUAREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72249 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 23 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL CRUZ-JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72249 Agency No. A087-966-497 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Angel Cruz-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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). 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). We deny the petition for review. The BIA found Cruz-Juarez not credible based on discrepancies in his testimony and application as to the events leading to his father’s arrest. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim [under the REAL ID Act], when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”); id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Even if Cruz-Juarez’s explanations for the discrepancies were plausible, they do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony in this case, Cruz-Juarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Juarez’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72249
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.
