William Castillo-Benavides v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-816-994 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999879322]. Mailed to: William Alexander Castillo-Benavides 2004 Amherst Road Hyattsville, MD 20783. [15-2371]

Appeal: 15-2371

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2371

WILLIAM ALEXANDER CASTILLO-BENAVIDES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

June 29, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Alexander Castillo-Benavides, Petitioner Pro Se.
Scott
Michael Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2371

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Alexander Castillo-Benavides petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
petitioner’s informal brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Here, the

Board affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal
on the ground that Castillo-Benavides lacked credibility.

In his

informal brief, however, Castillo-Benavides fails to challenge the
adverse credibility determination or the agency’s denial of his
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In

failing to challenge the basis for the agency’s denial of relief,
Castillo-Benavides has forfeited appellate review of the Board’s
order.

See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th

Cir. 2013) (deeming issues not raised in opening brief waived);
Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007) (same).
Even if the issue was not forfeited, however, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and
the IJ provided “specific, cogent reasons” for rejecting CastilloBenavides’ claims.

See Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206-07

(4th Cir. 2015) (explaining credibility determinations).

The

independent evidence that Castillo-Benavides submitted with his
2

Appeal: 15-2371

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

asylum application contradicted his own version of events and
therefore does not overcome the adverse credibility determination.
See id. at 213.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re CastilloBenavides (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2015).

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3