N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAZ ESPANO M AGALLANES, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72586 Age n c y No. A200-976-701 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

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Pa z Espa no M a ga lla

ne s , a native and c itiz e n of the Philippine s, pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing he r a p plic ation for withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED MAY20 2014 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t, Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th C i r. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. M a ga lla n e s a lle g e d pa s t pe rse c ution a nd a fe ar of future pe rse c ution a t the ha nds of Fe lix Elive ra . Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion ba se d on M a ga lla ne s’ c onvic tion of a c rim e involving fraudule nt be havior, se e Unuak haulu v . Gonzale

s , 416 F.3d 931, 938-39 (9th C ir. 2005) (c rim ina l c onvic tion involving fra ud unde rm ine d c re dibility ), and ba se d on M a g a l la ne s’ thre e trips from

the Philippine s to theUnite d State s ove r 18 y e ars, se e Loho v . Muk

ase y , 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th C ir. 2008) (volunta ry re turn to c ountry of a lle g e d pe rse c ution unde rm ine d c re dibility ). M a ga lla

ne s’ e xpla

n at ions do not c om pe l a c ontra ry re s ult. Se eLata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C i r. 2000). In the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , M a ga lla ne s’ withholding of rem ova l c la im fa ils. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). M a ga lla n e s’ C A T c la im

a lso fa ils be c a

use it is ba s e d on the sa

m e unde rly ing e ve nts tha t the a ge nc y

found not c re dible , a

nd she doe s not point to a ny othe r 1 2 - 7 2 5 8 6 2e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t c om pe ls the finding it is m

ore like ly tha n not shewould be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l in the Philippine s. Se e id. at 1156-57. Fina lly , we re

je c t M a ga lla

ne s’ c onte ntion tha

t the IJ viola

te d he r due proc e ss rights by not providing he

r attorne y an opportunity

to m a ke an ope ning sta

te m e nt or a c l osing a rgum e n t, be c a

use he r attorne y

ne ve r re que ste d it, a

nd she fa ils to show how the a

bse nc e of the s e argum e n t s pre judic e d he r c a se . Se e Lata , 204 F.3d at 1246 (re q

uiring e rror and pre

judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e ss c la im ). Thus, M a g a l la ne s’ due proc e ss c la im fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 5 8 6 3