Francisco ALVARO-IRAETA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72646
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sept. 4, 2015
618 Fed. Appx. 265
Agency No. A094-455-554
The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on July 7, 2015. Thus, respondent‘s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
Francisco Alvaro-Iraeta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT“). We have jurisdiction under
Substantial evidence supports the agency‘s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Alvaro-Iraeta‘s asylum application and his testimony regarding events in El Salvador and his reason for fleeing. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir. 1990); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Alvaro-Iraeta‘s contention that the IJ failed to properly consider his explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, Alvaro-Iraeta‘s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Alvaro-Iraeta does not raise any arguments challenging the agency‘s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Terrell D. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15314
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.* Filed Sept. 4, 2015.
618 Fed. Appx. 265
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Terrell Curry, Lancaster, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Thomas S. Patterson, Esquire, Supervisory, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
California state prisoner Terrell D. Curry appeals pro se from the district court‘s summary judgment in his action under
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry‘s RLUIPA claim because defendants met their burden to show that their refusal to provide Curry with a Kemenic food diet, as conceived of and described by Curry, of mostly raw, vegan, non-genetically modified and non-irradiated food was the least restrictive means of furthering the prison‘s compelling interests in prison security and cost-efficient food service. See
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry‘s free exercise claim because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ refusal to provide him with a Kemenic food diet, as conceived of and described by Curry, was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987) (holding that a prison regulation that “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights” is valid “if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests“).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.