ASTACIO MARTINEZ AMAYA, AKA Astacio Amaya, AKA Astacio Martinez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASTACIO MARTINEZ AMAYA, AKA
Astacio Amaya, AKA Astacio Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70873
Agency No. A095-006-300
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Astacio Martinez Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

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). We deny the petition
for review.
Martinez Amaya does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Martinez Amaya’s
asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Martinez Amaya’s testimony and written
statement regarding whether and when his brother first experienced problems with
his father’s murderer. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Martinez Amaya’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony,
Martinez-Amaya’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
13-70873 2

-- 2 of 3 --

In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Martinez-Amaya’s nexus
contentions. See INS v. Bagamasad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70873 3

-- 3 of 3 --