N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARLOS ANTONIO ESC ALANTEFLORE S, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70449 Age n c y No. A201-174-552 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 August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. C arlos Antonio Esc a la

nte -Flore s, a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa l va dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED SEP 04 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).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, inc l uding c re dibility findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t. Shre

s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th C ir. 2004). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not support Esc a la nte -Flore s ’ c o nte ntion tha t the B IA did not ta ke any of his ne w e vide nc e or a

rgum e nts into a c c o unt. TheB IA c onside re d his ne w e vide nc e and found it did not wa rrant re m a

nd. Esc la nte -Flore s doe s not c ha lle nge this de te rm inat ion by the B IA. Furthe r, we do not c onside r the ne w m ate ria l s Esc a l ante -Flore s subm its for thefirst tim e with his opening brie f. Se e Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996) (thec ourt’ s re vie w is limite d to the a dm inistra

tive re c ord). Insofa

r a s Esc a la

nte -Flore s se e ks to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings, the prope r c ourse is to m ake this re que s t to theB IA. Se e id. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination ba se d on the inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Esc a la nte -Flore s’ te stim ony

and a sy lum a pplic ation re ga

rding his brother’ s ga

ng m e m be rship a nd de ath, whic h ga

n g shot Esc a la nte -Flore s, a

nd whe re he live d in El Sa l va dor. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t
1 2 - 7 0 4 4 9 21048 (a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s re a s ona ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um s ta nc e s ). Esc a la

nte -Flore s’ e xpla

n ations do not c o m

pe l a c ontra ry re sult. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000). W e re je c t Esc a la

nte -Flore s’ c onte ntion tha

t the B IA e xc e e de d the sc ope of its re v ie w by a pply ing the REAL ID Ac t to thefa c ts of this c a se . S e e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1039-40 (e xpla ining the REAL ID Ac t a

pplie s to “ a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of rem o va l, a nd C AT re lie f m a de on or a fte r M ay 11, 2005” ). Thus, Esc a l ante -Flore s’ a sy l um and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s fa il. Se e id. at 1048. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Esc a la nte -Flore s’ C AT c la i m

be c a use it wa s ba se d on the sa m e sta te m e nts tha

t we re found not c re d ible , and the re c ord doe s not othe rwise c om pe l the finding tha

t it is more like l y tha n not he would be torture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie s c e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to El Sa lva d or. Se eShre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048-49. Esc a la n t e -Flore s’ due proc e ss c la im ba se d on ina de quate transla t ion fa ils. Se e Lata , 204 F.3d a

t 1246 (re quiring pre

judic e to pre va i l on a

due proc e ss c la im ). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r Esc a la n te -Flore s’ c onte n tions tha t the IJ wa s bia se d a

nd fa i le d to fully

de ve lop the re c ord, a

nd tha t he ha d ina de quate le ga l a s sista

nc e , be c a u se Esc a la

nte -Flore s did not e xha

u st the se c la im s be fore the

1 2 - 7 0 4 4 9 3B IA. Se e Barron , 358 F.3d a t 677-78. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 0 4 4 9 4