United States v. 2020-07-21 | 19-72228 | JOSE DANIEL V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE YAPILA DANIEL,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72228

Agency No. A215-672-418

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Jose Yapila Daniel, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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

JUL 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-72228
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
where Daniel testified that he was beaten during his detention but omitted any
mention of beatings during his credible fear interview. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch,
827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016) (“an adverse credibility determination may
be supported by omissions that are not details, but new allegations that tell a much
different—and more compelling—story of persecution” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Daniel’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, Daniel’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Daniel’s contentions as to the
agency’s finding that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. 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 supports the agency’s denial of Daniel’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Daniel would be

3 19-72228
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Angola. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
The record does not support Daniel’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider evidence, limited him from submitting evidence, or otherwise erred in the
analysis of his claims.
Daniel’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry
No. 21) is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.