Case Name: Anderson Josue DELCI-PEREZ, AKA Henry Del Cid Castillo, AKA Anderson Josue Del Cid Perez Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-01
Citations: 670 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 13-74212
Parties: Anderson Josue DELCI-PEREZ, AKA Henry Del Cid Castillo, AKA Anderson Josue Del Cid Perez Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CEfRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Anderson Josue DELCI-PEREZ, AKA Henry Del Cid Castillo, AKA Anderson Josue Del Cid Perez Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-74212
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 1, 2016
Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
Dana Michelle Camilleri, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CEfRISTEN, 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
Anderson Josué Delci-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. 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.
The agency found Delci-Perez not credible based on numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities. Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances). Delci-Perez's explanations do 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, Delci-Perez's withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.