Crisonto Rodas-Calderon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CRISONTO RODAS-CALDERON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72280
Agency No. A072-978-471
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD Circuit Judges.
Crisonto Rodas-Calderon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
OCT 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72280 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the new 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.
The agency found Rodas-Calderon ineligible for asylum because he
previously applied for asylum and that application was denied. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(C). The record does not compel the conclusion that he established
changed circumstances materially affecting his eligibility such that he was not
barred from applying for asylum again. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Rodas-Calderon failed to
demonstrate he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Parussimova, 555 F.3d at 740-41. Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim
fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination based on the omission of the events leading up to Rodas-Calderon’s

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72280 3
most recent departure from Guatemala. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040-44
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality
of the circumstances”). And, because Rodas-Calderon fails to point to any other
evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
Guatemala, his CAT claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --