Jose Pascual Vicente-Simon v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PASCUAL VICENTE-SIMON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73888
Agency No. A099-579-243
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Pascual Vicente-Simon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
JUN 30 2014
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 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility
determinations. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Vicente-Simon’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because Vicente-Simon failed to exhaust the claim in his direct
appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised to the agency); see also
Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (indicating that ineffective
assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
Vicente-Simon’s motion to take judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Vicente-Simon’s testimony and his supporting
documents regarding the injuries he sustained, the reason he was targeted, and
whether he saw his father after the second kidnaping. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048 (adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); see also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007).
Vicente-Simon’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
11-73888 2

-- 2 of 3 --

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony,
Vicente-Simon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
11-73888 3

-- 3 of 3 --