Domingo Carrillo Chavarria 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DOMINGO CARRILLO CHAVARRIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70106
Agency No. A071-632-867
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Carrillo Chavarria, 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 applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and special rule cancellation of
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70106 2
removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
(“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on inconsistencies between Carrillo Chavarria’s testimony and applications
regarding the death of two of his brothers in Guatemala, which he was unable to
adequately explain. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies relating to the basis for
petitioner’s fear of persecution went to the heart of the claim and supported the
adverse credibility finding). Carrillo Chavarria’s contention that he received faulty
interpretation is not supported by the record.
In the absence of credible testimony, Carrillo Chavarria’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Carrillo
Chavarria is not eligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202,
1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70106 3
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Carrillo Chavarria failed to show the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal.
See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Carrillo
Chavarria’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard in
considering his hardship claim is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --