Aybar-Canales v. Gonzales, 224 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2007).
Search
Aybar-Canales v. Gonzales, 224 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2007). Book View Copy Cite
Jose Luis AYBAR-CANALES
v.
Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General
No. 05-76432.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 27, 2007.
224 F. App'x 564
Jose Luis Aybar-Canales, Los Angeles, CA, pro se., District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Beezer, Fernandez, McKeown.
Published

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Aybar-Canales, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s decision, which was adopted by the BIA, see Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Aybar-Canales was not eligible for withholding of removal because he was not credible. The IJ properly found that Aybar-Canales had omitted any reference to the police detentions, which formed the principal basis of his claim, from his asylum application, which had been prepared by counsel. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Aybar-Canales’s CAT claim is based on the same facts the IJ found to be not credible, he has failed to establish that the record compels a finding of eligibility for CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.