N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GILB ER TO M ENDOZA C A LM O, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71079 Age n c y No. A089-650-648 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, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Gilbe rto M e ndoz a

C a lm o, a native and c i tiz e n of Gua t e m a la , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

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

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# F IL ED MAY29 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 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 c re at e d by

the REAL ID Ac t, Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d re v ie w de novo due proc e ss c la im s, Hartooni v. IN S, 21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th C ir. 1994). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. W ith re spe c t to M e n doz a

C a lm o’ s c la im

of m istre atm e nt by

ga ng m e m be rs, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination ba se d on inc onsiste nc ie s re ga

rding thetim ing a

nd num be r of tim e s ga

ng m e m be rs phy sic a lly

ha rm e d him . Se eShre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048 (a dve rse c re dibility finding wa s re a sona

ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um sta

nc e s). W e re

je c t M e ndoz a C a lm o’ s c onte nt ion tha

t inte rpre tation problem s a re to bla m e for the a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding be c a

use the re c ord doe s not support it, a nd re je c t his re late d due proc e ss c la im . S e eLata v . IN

S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir.2000) (re quiring e rror to pre v a il on a due proc e ss c la im); Hartooni , 21 F.3d a t 339-40 (pe t itione r fa i le d to show there we re inte rpre tat ion proble m s tha t a ffe c t e d the outc om e of he r proc e e dings). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a g e nc y finding that , with re spe c t the re m a inde r of M e ndoz a C a lm o’ s c la i m , his e xpe rie nc e s in Guate m a la

did not rise

to thele ve l of pe rse c ution. Se eGu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th C ir. 2006) (a thre e -day de te ntion a

nd be ating did not c om

pe l a 1 3 - 7 1 0 7 9 2finding of pa st pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t M e ndoz a

C a lm o fa ile d to e s ta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se eN

agoulk o v . IN S, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility of future pe rse c ution too spe c ulative ). Thus, M e ndoz a C a lm o ’ s a sy lum c la i m

fa ils. B e c a use M e ndoz a

C a lm o fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , his withholding of rem o v a l c la im ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se e Ze h aty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of M e n doz a C a lm o’ s C A T c la i m

be c a use he fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like l y tha

n not he would betorture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to Gua

t e m a la . Se eSilay a v . Muk a se y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 1 0 7 9 3