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 PEREZ-ANDR A DE, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70937 Age n c y No. A070-929-764 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 Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos Pe re z -Andra de , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe 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 unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED OCT 20 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).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, inc luding a dve rse c re dibility findings. Se e Zamanov

v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re vie wde novo due proc e s s c ha lle nge s. Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. 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 re ga rding whe n Pe re z -Andra de e xpe rie n c e d ha rm at the h ands of politic a l riva l s a n d whe n he e nte re d the Unite d State s , a s we ll a s the va gue nat ure of his te stim o ny

and de c la

ration. Se e C

orte z-Pine da v . Holde r , 610 F.3d 1118, 1123-24 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ha nge in da te of e n try

and inc onsiste n c ie s re ga rding thedate of pa st thre ats we nt to thehe art of the c l a im ); se e also Singh v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th C ir. 2004) (la c k of de ta i l in te stim ony re ga rding a lle ge d politic a l a c t ivitie s supporte d a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination). W e re je c t Pe re z -Andra de ’ s c o n te ntion tha t the IJ fa ile d to prope rly

c o nside r his e xpla nations for theinc onsiste nc ie s. Se eZamanov , 649 F.3d a t 974. In the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , Pe re z -Andra de ’ s a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c la im s fa i l. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C i r. 2003). B e c a use Pe re z -Andra de ’ s C AT c la im wa s ba se d on the sam e sta te m e nts tha

t we re found not c re dible , a nd the re c ord doe s not othe rwise c om pe l the c onc lusion

1 3 - 7 0 9 3 7 2that

it is m o re like l y

tha n not he will betorture d by or with c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e n t if re turne d to M e xic o , his C A T c la i m fa ils. S e e Farah , 348 F.3d at 1156-57. W e re

j e c t Pe re z -Andra de ’ s c o nte ntion tha t the a ge nc y

viola te d due proc e s s in its a

na ly s is a nd re je c tion of his C AT c la im . Se eLata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re q uiring e rror to pre va il on a due proc e ss c la im ). Fina lly , we de ny

Pe re z -Andra de ’ s m otion to re fe r the c a se to m e d iation. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D .

1 3 - 7 0 9 3 7 3