NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Alfredo Ramos

- Velasquez,

Petitioner,

v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 670 Agency No. A089

- 815

- 569

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13 , 2023 Submission W ithdrawn March 20, 2023 Res ubmitted October 16 , 2023 **
Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA , Circuit Judges

. Alfredo Ramos

- Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) decision that affirm ed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding of adverse credibility , den ied his applicat ion for withholding of removal , and found him ineligible for protections under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

* 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

OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 670

and we deny the petition.
Ramos

- Vela squez was first removed from the United States to Mexico i n 2008 , after he repeatedly presented himself as a Mexican national using a false birth certificate and fake identifying information. Between 2008 and 2012,
Ramos

- Velasquez attempted to reenter the United States five additional times ; on each occasion, he was permitted to depart voluntarily

. Ramos

- Velasquez returned to Guatemala in 2012

. In 2015, while still in Guatemala, Ramos

Velasqu ez claims that he was attacked by gang members who attempted to extort him and prevent his efforts to curb gang recruitment through his church

. Ramos

Velasquez reentered the United States in 2017, at which time the D epartment of Homeland S ecurity reinstat ed removal proceedings

. 1
1. Ramos

- Velasquez’s claim for withholding of removal fails because

s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. “ We review the [agency’s] findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations and the findings underlying the denial of relief, for substantial evidence. ” Singh v. Holder , 638 F.3d 1264, 1268

– 69 (9th Cir. 2011)

. “Under the REAL ID Act, there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is a uthorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of

1 The government now concedes that we have jurisdiction under Alonso

- Juarez v. Garla nd , 80 F.4 th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that the thirty

- day deadline provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a non

- jurisdictional rule and that a reinstated order of removal becomes final only after withholding

- only proceedings have concluded).3 21

- 670

the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152

– 53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Here, substantial evidence sup ports t he BIA’s determination that Ramos

Velasquez lacked credibility based on his “willful misrepresentations about his identity” that were unrelated t o the persecution that he later allegedly experienced. See Singh v. Holder , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a dece ption that is “ completely unrelated to escaping immediate danger or gaining entry to the United States” can support an adverse credibility determination)

. In addition, g iven that Ramos

- Velasquez did not submit any

corro borating evidence to support his testimony that he was persecut ed , the BIA appropriately concluded that Ramos

- Velasquez failed to establish past persecution or likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected ground

. Ramos

- Velasquez’s withholdin g of removal claim thus fails.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Ramos

- Velasquez failed to establish his entitlement to CAT protection

. T he BIA further determined that even if Ramos

- Velasquez’s testimony were credible, he did not de monstrate a likelihood of future torture with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. Substantial evidence supports this determination. First, Ramos

Velasquez’s partner

— whom he claims was also threatened by the gang

— continues to reside in Guatemala, in a community not far from Ramos

Velasquez’s hometown, where she has experienced no gang - related problems

. This suggests that Ramos

- Velasquez could safely relocate within Guatemala. See4 21

- 670

Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir . 2010). Second, although
Ramos

- Velasquez contends that law enforcement did not assist him after the alleged assault , government ineffectiveness in controlling crime does not amount to acquiescence in torture

. See Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 8 36 (9th Cir. 2016)

. Finally, Ramos

- Velasquez reported that he never had any problems with the Guatemala n government or its officers, including the police, and that he does not think that the police or government could harm him in the future. Based

on the se fact s , we are not compelled to conclude that the BIA erred in denying
Ramos

- Velasquez’s CAT claim.
PETITION DENIED.