NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS ANTONIO ZAVALETA-SAN 

LUCAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72273 

Agency No. A200-885-043 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 7, 2018**

Seattle, Washington

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and CHRISTEN, Circuit 

Judges.

Jesus Zavaleta-San Lucas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal on 

 

* 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

DEC 14 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

adverse credibility grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Substantial 

evidence supports the BIA’s decision, and we therefore deny the petition. 

We review for substantial evidence decisions by the BIA denying eligibility 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 

827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). Where, as here, the BIA “incorporates the 

IJ’s decision into its own without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 

(BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” 

Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ahir v. 

Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 2008)). We also review adverse credibility 

determinations for substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We defer to the factual findings of the BIA, and they “are 

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 

the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the BIA’s interpretations of 

legal questions de novo. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193–94 (9th Cir.

2003).

Zavaleta-San Lucas alleges that he fears harm at the hands of the Flores 

Flores family, which is a part of the Antorcha political party in his hometown of 

Tepexi de Rodriguez, Puebla, Mexico. Zavaleta-San Lucas stated that the Flores 

Flores family dislikes his family because of its support of a different political 
3 

party. Zavaleta-San Lucas testified that he was attacked on multiple occasions by 

members of the Flores Flores family, but omitted this testimony from his earlier 

written statement. Because of these omissions, the IJ made an adverse credibility 

determination and denied Zavaleta-San Lucas’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims. The BIA affirmed. 

Credibility determinations are made considering the “totality of the 

circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “the consistency between the 

applicant’s . . . written and oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) 

(asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of removal). When evaluating 

discrepancies between statements, “an omission may form the basis for an adverse 

credibility finding.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014). However,

“the mere omission of details is insufficient to uphold an adverse credibility 

finding.” Id. (quoting Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

This is not a case of “mere omission of details.” Zavaleta-San Lucas’s oral 

testimony—presented on direct examination—was far more expansive and more 

favorable to his position, and the only reason he offered to explain the omissions

that involved him directly is that he “forgot.” Cf. Lai, 773 F.3d at 973–74

(reversing an adverse credibility determination when omissions relating to third 

parties were raised on cross examination and explained plausibly); Zamanov v. 

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973–974 (9th Cir. 2011). Because these factors undermine 
4 

Zavaleta-San Lucas’s credibility, substantial evidence supports the adverse 

credibility determination. Without credible testimony, Zavaleta-San Lucas has not 

met his burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of 

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).

Turning to Zavaleta-San Lucas’s CAT claim, the BIA’s adverse credibility 

determination “does not, by itself, necessarily defeat” a CAT claim. Garcia v. 

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). Rather, “all evidence relevant to the 

possibility of future torture shall be considered.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). 

However, if a petitioner’s testimony is discredited, he must substantiate his claims 

with independent corroborating evidence. See Garcia, 749 F.3d at 792. ZavaletaSan Lucas seeks to corroborate his claims with country condition reports about 

Mexico. However, these reports do not show that Zavaleta-San Lucas is 

specifically “more likely than not” to be tortured if he returns to Mexico because 

the reports focus on generalized violence in the country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection.

The petition for review is DENIED.