NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JOSE FERNANDEZ

- RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72263 Agency No. A098

- 950

- 915

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020 * * Portland, Oregon Before: M. MURPHY, ** * BENNETT, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Fernandez

- Ramirez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration Nationality Act and for protection

* 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 argum ent. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

under the Convention Again st Torture (CAT). He also challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1) , and we deny the petition in part and dismiss the petition in part. The BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are
reviewed for substantial evidence. See Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this deferential standard, the BIA’s findings “are conclusive unless any reaso nable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (4)(B). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. Petitioner made several inconsistent statements related to the key events supporting
his claims. Most significantly, in a 2009 sworn statement to immigration officials , Petitioner did not express any fear about returning to Mexico based on the 2008 incidents that he now asserts support his claims. T he BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence

. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590
F.3d 1 034, 10 4 4

– 45, 1046

– 47 ( 9th Cir. 20 10)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s unexhausted argument challenging the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The immigration judge determined that withholding of removal could be denied based on the adverse credibility finding al one, suggesting that Petitioner’s non

-3

discredited evidence was insufficient to support his withholding of removal claim.
Petitioner f

ailed to raise or challenge this holding before the BIA, as he never argued to the BIA that his non

- discredited evidence alone was sufficient to support
his withholding of removal claim or that it would be error to treat the adverse credibility determinati on as dispositive

. We thus dismiss the petition with respect

to the withholding of removal claim.
As for the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the BIA denied relief based solely on the adverse credibility
determination. Though brief, the BIA’s decision shows that it denied relief
because the non

- discredited evidence fail s to support that Petitioner established a necessary element for CAT relief

— that any torture would be “at the instigation of
or with the c onsent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1)

. Petitioner’s evidence that the
Mexican police would consent to or acquiesce in any torture was speculative and
undermined by evidence s howing that the police had issued a restraining order against the alleged persecutor in the past

. In sum, the BIA’s finding is supported by substantial evidence because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.