NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN JOSE AGUILAR-URIAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72528 

Agency No. A205-509-464 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Juan Jose Aguilar-Urias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72528 

questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). 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). We deny the 

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguilar-Urias established 

extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); see also Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1090-91 (extraordinary 

circumstances did not excuse untimely asylum application where petitioner 

claimed ineffective assistance of counsel but failed to comply with Matter of 

Lozada requirements). We reject as unsupported by the record Aguilar-Urias’ 

contention that the BIA ignored his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, 

we deny the petition for review as to Aguilar-Urias’ asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on the inconsistencies between Aguilar-Urias’ statement to a border agent, 

credible fear interview, declaration, and testimony as to the injuries he suffered at 

the hands of gang members and whether he feared returning to El Salvador. See 

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under 

“the totality of circumstances”). Aguilar-Urias’ explanations do not compel a 

contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 
3 18-72528 

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand for the IJ to 

consider new evidence, where Aguilar-Urias failed to demonstrate that the new 

evidence he sought to submit would likely have changed the outcome of his case. 

See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioners who seek to 

remand proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were 

reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation 

omitted)); see also Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008)

(standard of review). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, we 

deny the petition for review as to Aguilar-Urias’ withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguilar-Urias’

CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and 

Aguilar-Urias does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not his would be tortured by or with the 

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

Finally, Aguilar-Urias’ motion to reconsider the court’s order entered on

February 26, 2019 (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as untimely. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.