Opinion
15-71726
08-22-2022
EDILCER MIGUEL-LOPEZ, AKA Ruperto Marcos Morales Perez, Francisco Rivera, Oscar Valdez, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 17, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098-440-226
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Edilcer Miguel-Lopez, 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. 1 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 under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on Miguel-Lopez's admitted falsehoods in his testimony, his sworn statements, and his previous asylum applications. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (An "applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story."). Miguel-Lopez's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2021). In the absence of credible testimony, Miguel-Lopez's withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2
[*] 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).