Jose Luis Centeno-Valdivia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS CENTENO-VALDIVIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72707
Agency No. A098-486-741
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Centeno-Valdivia, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72707
(“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 inconsistencies between Centeno-Valdivia’s testimony and declaration as
to the number of Sandinistas who attacked him on July 13, 2003, inconsistencies
between his testimony and Form I-213 as to his initial departure from Nicaragua,
and inconsistencies between his testimony and the Record of Sworn Statement as
to his last entry to the United States and whether he feared returning to Nicaragua.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
the circumstances”). Centeno-Valdivia’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject as
unsupported by the record Centeno-Valdivia’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider his explanations. Thus, in the absence of credible testimony Centeno-
Valdivia’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not reach Centeno-Valdivia’s merits-based contentions regarding his
eligibility for withholding of removal because the BIA did not deny relief on those

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72707
grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Centeno-Valdivia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Nicaragua. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --