Kristhel Orestes Castellanos Rojas; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTHEL ORESTES CASTELLANOS
ROJAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71732
Agency Nos. A201-756-978
A201-756-979
A201-756-980
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Kristhel Orestes Castellanos Rojas, his wife, and their minor son, natives
and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for asylum, and denying Castellanos Rojas’s and his
* 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
APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71732
wife’s applications for 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 agency’s factual findings, 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 deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission of Castellanos Rojas’s political activities in Guatemala from
his declaration and initial testimony. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Zamanov v. Holder,
649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s omissions supported adverse
credibility determination where they did not constitute “a mere lack of detail” but
“went to the core of his alleged fear”). Castellanos Rojas’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, the 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 petitioners’
remaining contentions regarding the merits of their claims. 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71732
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners’ claims were based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and they do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Farah,
348 F.3d at 1157.
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contention that the IJ
violated their right to due process by not familiarizing himself with the record.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --