Jose Daniel Rodriguez Machado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANIEL RODRIGUEZ MACHADO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71641
Agency No. A203-699-539
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 Daniel Rodriguez Machado, a native and citizen of Cuba, 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
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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 20-71641
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 the inconsistency between the photographic evidence of damage to
Rodriguez Machado’s house and the source of those photographs, the
inconsistency between his testimony and medical records, and inconsistencies
between his testimony and documentary evidence as to the detention of Rodriguez
Machado’s pastor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
the totality of the circumstances). Rodriguez Machado’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Rodriguez Machado’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Rodriguez Machado does not contest the BIA’s denial of his due
process claim or its determinations that he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, that his past harm
did not rise to the level of persecution, and a proposed particular social group
based on resistance to recruitment was not cognizable, we do not address these

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71641
issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --