Mario Orozco Gutierrez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO OROZCO GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73504
Agency No. A090-723-035
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mario Orozco Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 29 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 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistences between Orozco Gutierrez’s testimony and evidence
regarding the incidents his mother and relatives allegedly experienced in Mexico.
See id. at 1046-47 (“when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless
is of great weight”). In the absence of credible testimony, Orozco Gutierrez’s
asylum, including humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Orozco
Gutierrez’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not
he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73504 2

-- 2 of 2 --