Cesar Augusto Ambrocio 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CESAR AUGUSTO AMBROCIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75199
Agency No. A071-586-330
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Ambrocio, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-75199 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, including the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Cortez-Pineda v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
on the basis of inconsistencies in Ambrocio’s testimony regarding when he
received the threatening letters and on the basis of the omission of his union
activities from his asylum application and interview. See id. at 1124 (inconsistency
regarding when petitioner received threats); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,
1183 (9th Cir. 2008) (omission of political activism from petitioner’s application
and interview). Further, Ambrocio’s explanations of the inconsistencies and
omission do not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
974 (9th Cir. 2011) (explanation for omitting incidents was plausible, but record
did not compel belief “in light of the importance of the omitted incidents to his
asylum claim”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Ambrocio’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT
protection because Ambrocio’s CAT claim relies on the same statements the
agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that would compel a finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured

-- 2 of 3 --

08-75199 3
if returned to Guatemala. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, Ambrocio’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --