Francisco Anderson Romero- Urrutia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ANDERSON ROMERO-
URRUTIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71506
Agency No. A206-798-964
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Anderson Romero-Urrutia, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
* 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).
FILED
JAN 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 18-71506
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo
the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the
extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes
and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020).
We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding social distinction. Id.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
an omission in Romero-Urrutia’s declaration regarding his hand injury, internal
inconsistencies in Romero-Urrutia’s testimony and inconsistencies between his
testimony and documentary evidence regarding Luis’s injuries and disappearance,
and his demeanor during his testimony regarding his brother. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); see also Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2021) (“BIA and IJ did not err in relying on [petitioner’s] evasive and
unresponsive demeanor while testifying after providing examples of his
evasiveness.”). Romero-Urrutia’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Romero-Urrutia’s asylum and

-- 2 of 4 --

3 18-71506
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Romero-Urrutia
failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See Conde
Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1241-42 at 1243 (petitioner’s proposed social group was not
cognizable because of the absence of society-specific evidence of social
distinction). As such, the BIA did not err in concluding that Romero-Urrutia did
not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a
particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1)
composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined
with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Romero-Urrutia’s remaining
contentions as to asylum and withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because
Romero-Urrutia’s claim was based on the same testimony found not credible, and
Romero-Urrutia does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

-- 3 of 4 --

4 18-71506
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in El Salvador. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --