N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OSC AR B ELTR AN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70779 Age n c y No. A088-450-582 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m be r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. On Se pte m

be r 23, 2015, the

c o urt gra nte d re sponde nt’ s unoppose d m otion to sta y proc e e dings. On Oc tobe r 13, 2015, re sponde nt inform e d the c ourt tha t Osc ar B e ltra n is not a c andida te for prose c utoria l disc re tion, a n d re que s te d tha

t this c a se m ove forward. The sta

y of proc e e dings is here by

lifte d. 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e ltra n, a native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing B e ltra n’ s a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ), a nd volunta

ry de pa rture . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a p ply ing thesta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations c re ate d by the RE AL ID Ac t, Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d we dism iss in pa

rt and de ny in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w B e ltra n’ s volunta

ry de pa rture c la im , be c a

use he re que s ts re c onside ration of thea ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona ry m o ra l c ha

ra c te r de te rm i nation. Se e Gil v . Holde r , 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th C ir. 2011) (ove rruling on othe r grounds re c ogniz e d by U.S. v . He rnande

z , 769 F.3d 1059 (9th C ir. 2014)) (c ourt la c ke d jurisdic t i on to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona ry de nia l of volunta

ry de pa rture ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha t B e ltra n fa ile d to show c ha nge d c i rc um sta

nc e be c a use this de te rm ination is ba se d on a dispute d fa c t. Se e Vahora v . Holde r , 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th C ir. 2011) (c o urt m ay re vie w “ the

1 3 - 7 0 7 7 9 2a ge nc y ’ s a

pplic ation of thec h ange d ... c irc um sta nc e s e xc e ption to undispute d fa c t s” ) (inte rna l c i tations omitte d). As to withholding of re

m ova l, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion ba se d on the inc o nsiste nc ie s be twe e n B e ltra n’ s a sy lum a pplic ation, de c la

ration, a nd te stim o ny , and his e va sive te s tim o ny re ga rding his prior a

rre sts. Se eShre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C i r. 2010) (a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s re a sona ble unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta nc e s ). In the a

b s e nc e of c re dible te stim ony , B e ltra n’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). B e c a use B e ltra n’ s C AT c la im is ba se d on the sa m e te stim ony the a ge nc y found not c re dible and the re c ord doe s not otherwise c om p e l the c onc lusion tha

t it is m o re like ly

tha n not he will betorture d if re t urne d to Gua

te m a la , his C A T c la im a lso fa ils. Se e id. at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 0 7 7 9 3