NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIRAMOR PEREZ-RIVERA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71765 

Agency No. A215-716-084 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Miramor Perez-Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 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 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).

FILED

JUN 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71765 

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 review de novo claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We 

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies within Perez-Rivera’s testimony, and between his

testimony and credible fear interview as to the location of his injuries, as well as 

inconsistencies between Perez-Rivera’s testimony and declaration as to his 

interactions with police officers. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse 

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also 

Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2014) (adverse credibility finding is 

supported when despite given the opportunity, an applicant fails to clarify or 

explain inconsistent statements). Perez-Rivera’s explanations do not compel a 

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

agency did not err by considering inconsistencies between Perez-Rivera’s 

statements to an asylum officer during a credible fear interview and his hearing 

testimony. See Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2019) (when there are

sufficient indicia of reliability, an IJ may consider inconsistencies between what a 

petitioner said to an asylum officer and the petitioner’s testimony before the IJ). 
3 19-71765 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rivera’s 

corroborative evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See 

Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791 (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to 

rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of 

credible testimony, in this case, Perez-Rivera’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

it was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and PerezRivera points to no other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it 

is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence 

of the government if returned to Honduras. See id. at 1157; see also Dhital v. 

Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “petitioner must 

demonstrate that he would be subject to a ‘particularized threat of torture’” to 

obtain CAT relief) (citation omitted).

We reject Perez-Rivera’s contention that the agency failed to consider 

evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA 

adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

Perez-Rivera’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights

fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to 

prevail on a due process claim). 
4 19-71765 

Perez-Rivera’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) and his 

supplemental motion (Docket Entry No. 5) are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.