Emiliano Solis 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).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIANO SOLIS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71619
Agency No. A070-938-176
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Emiliano Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KV/Research 07-71619 2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
adverse credibility findings, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000), and
we review de novo constitutional issues, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Solis failed to produce his brother’s testimony at the hearing to
corroborate his claim, where his brother was the only witness to events forming the
basis of Solis’ claim and was available to testify, see Sidhu, 220 F.3d at 1090-91
(IJ could properly fault applicant for failing to produce critical corroborating
witness from nearby suburb), and Solis’ explanation does not compel a contrary
conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence
of credible testimony, Solis’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Solis’ CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not
credible, and there is no evidence in the record that compels a finding that it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57. Solis’ contention that the agency did not apply the
correct standard to his CAT claim is not supported by the record.

-- 2 of 3 --

KV/Research 07-71619 3
We reject Solis’ contention that the IJ’s pretermission of his cancellation of
removal claim violated due process. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error
for due process violation).
Solis’ contention that the qualifying relative requirement for cancellation of
removal violates equal protection is foreclosed by Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526
F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --