Case Name: Jose CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 945
Docket Number: No. 14-73568
Parties: Jose CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 945–945

Head Matter:
Jose CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73568
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 3, 2016
Ravit Rae Halperin, Attorney, Immigration Law Offices of R. Rae Halperin, Lancaster, CA, for Petitioner
Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Contreras-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on Contreras-Castro's omission of a knife attack from his written statement and his testimony on direct and cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the "totality of circumstances."); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission of crucial facts from application constituted substantial evidence supporting adverse credibility determination). Contreras-Castro's explanation for the omission does not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Contreras-Castro's withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Contreras-Castro's CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.