NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

- VARGAS; et al.,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s . 18

- 71006 18

- 73444 Agency Nos. A208

- 553

- 521

A208

- 463

- 285 A208

- 463

- 286 A208

- 463

- 287

MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019 **
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Urias

- Vargas , his wife , and their two children, native s and citizen s of El Salvador , petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for as ylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

* 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

APR 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 71006 & 18

- 73444

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 18

- 71006 ) and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reconsider (No. 18

- 73444 )

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 questions of law, and we review for abus e of discretion the BIA ’ s denial of motions to reconsider. See Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
S ubstantial ev idence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsi sten cy in Urias

- Vargas’s testimony as to the number of times he paid extortion money to the gang and inconsistencies between Urias

- Vargas’ s credible fear interview, asylum declaration, and testimony as to the gang’s demands and the harm he suffered. See Shrestha , 590 F

. 3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Urias

Vargas’ explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absen ce of credible testimony, in this case, we deny the petition for review as to petitioner s ’ asylum and withholding of removal claims.3 18

- 71006 & 18

- 73444

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding their proposed social group. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because it w as based on the same evidence found not credible and petitioners do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Shrestha , 590 F

. 3d
at 1048

- 49.
We deny petitioners’ opposed motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 10) and deny their motion for leave to file supplemental briefing (Docket Entry No. 17)

. See Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

- 62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
T he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where th e motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order

. 8 CFR § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); see also Karingithi , 913 F.3d at 1160

- 62 . T hus, the4 18

- 71006 & 18

- 73444

government’s motion f

or summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 28 ) is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton , 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard).
PE TITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED .