FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASTACIO MARTINEZ AMAYA, AKA No. 13-70873 Astacio Amaya, AKA Astacio Martinez,

Agency No. A095-006-300

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Astacio Martinez Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

*

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). for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Martinez Amaya does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Martinez Amaya’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Martinez Amaya’s testimony and written statement regarding whether and when his brother first experienced problems with his father’s murderer. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Martinez Amaya’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Martinez-Amaya’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

2 13-70873

In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Martinez-Amaya’s nexus contentions. See INS v. Bagamasad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-70873