Edgar Rolando Garcia Morales v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ROLANDO GARCIA
MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74809
Agency No. A072-531-055
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Rolando Garcia Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74809 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon inconsistencies between Garcia Morales’ asylum applications, asylum
interview, and testimony regarding the basis for his claim. See Leon-Barrios v.
INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1997). Garcia-Morales’ assertion that the IJ
misinterpreted or failed to address his explanation is belied by the record. In the
absence of credible testimony, Garcia Morales’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Garcia Morales did
not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d
984, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia Morales’
motion for a continuance and declining to remand to allow him to obtain the

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74809 3
testimony of the asylum officer who interviewed him. See Sandoval-Luna, 526
F.3d at 1247.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --