Luis Emilio Diego-Nolasco, a.k.a Luis Emilio Mateo-Nolasco 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS EMILIO DIEGO-NOLASCO,
a.k.a Luis Emilio Mateo-Nolasco,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72097
Agency No. A089-267-776
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Emilio Diego-Nolasco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72097 2
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 created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Diego-
Nolasco failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse
the untimely filing of his asylum application beyond the one-year deadline. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4),(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Mateo-
Nolasco’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsistencies between Diego-Nolasco’s testimony and
his declaration, and between his testimony and his wife’s testimony, as to whether
associates of his attacker were looking for him or his wife while she was hiding at
his brother’s house. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
agency may consider inconsistencies between different witnesses and documentary
evidence when making credibility determinations); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under REAL ID Act’s “totality
of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, Diego-Nolasco’s

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72097 3
withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Diego-Nolasco’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the
BIA found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that
it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala, his CAT
claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --