NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N

UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

M A RI A CE L I DA M E NDOZ A T ORRE S ; et al

. ,

P eti ti o n er s ,

v

.
WI L L I A M P

. B A RR, A ttor n ey Gen er al
,
Res pon d en

t. No. 18- 71364

A g en cy Nos

. A 089- 285- 077

A 206- 519- 208 A 206- 519- 209

M E M O RA

NDUM *

On P eti ti on f or Rev i ew of

an Or der of th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s

S u bm i tted October 8, 2020 * * S eattl e, Was h i n g ton

B ef or e: GRA B E R an d W. F L E T CH E R, Ci r cu i t J u dg es , an d K OB A YA S H I , * * * Di str i ct J u dg e.

L ead P eti ti on er Mar i a M en doza T or r es ( " P eti ti on er " ) an d h er

m i n or ch i l dr en ,

L u i s F er n an do J i m en ez M en doza an d A i de Gu adal u pe J i m en ez M en doza, ar e 

# FI L E D

OCT 14 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t

ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e pan el u

n an i m ou s l y con cl u des th i s cas e i s s u i t abl e f o r d eci s i on wi t h ou t or al ar g u m en t. See F ed. R. A

pp. P

. 34( a) ( 2 )

.

* * * T h e H on or abl e L es l i e E

. K obay as h i
, Un i t ed S t ates Di s tr i ct J u dg e f or th e D i s tr i ct of H awai i
, si tti n g by des i g n ati on

.n ati v es an d ci ti zen s of M ex i co. T h ey s eek r ev i ew of th e B oar d of I m m i g r ati on

A ppeal s’ ( " B I A " ) f

i n al or der af f i r m i n g th e i m m i g r ati on ju dg e’ s ( " I J " ) den i al of

th ei r r equ es ts f

or as y l u m , w i th h ol di n g of r em ov al
, an d r el i ef u

n der th e Con

v en ti on

A g ai n s t T or

tu r e ( " CA T " )

. We den

y th e peti ti on

.
1. T h e B I A d eter

m i n ed t h at th e adv er se cr edi bi l i ty d eter m i n ati on was

di s pos i t i v e i n th i s cas e an d d ecl i n ed to addr es s P eti ti on er ’ s oth er ar g u m en t s

.

B ecau s e th e B I A di d n o t addr es s P eti ti on er ’ s s oci al g r ou p or oth er ar g

u m en ts ,
th os e qu es ti on s ar e n ot bef or e u s

. S ee Najm

abadi v

. H ol der
, 5 97 F

. 3d 983, 986
( 9 th Ci r

. 2 010) ( n o ti n g

th at o u r r ev i ew i s l i m

i ted t o th e g r ou

n ds on wh i ch th e B I A

r el i ed)

.
2. S u bs tan ti al ev i den ce s u

ppor ts th e adv er s e cr edi b i l i ty

f i n di n g

. S ee

S h r es th a v

. H ol der
, 590 F

. 3d 1034, 1039 ( 9th Ci r

. 2010) ( s tati n g s tan dar d of

r ev i ew)

. T h e B I A r el i ed on n u m er ou s i n con s i s ten ci es i n P eti t i o n er ’ s tes t i m on y ,
h er appl i cati on an d s u

ppor ti n g d ocu m en ts , an d h er wi tn es s es ’ tes ti m on y

. We m u s t

u ph o l d an adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty deter m i n ati on i f s u bs tan ti al ev i d en ce su

ppor ts ev en

on e of t h os e g r ou n ds

. Ri zk v

. H ol der
, 629 F

. 3d 1083, 1 088–89 ( 9 th Ci r

. 2011)

.

P eti ti on er ’ s tes t i m

on y abou t h er s on ’ s ki dn appi n g was i n con s i s ten t wi th h er
appl i cati on an d su

ppor ti n g d ocu m en ts

. A l th ou g h th e di scr epan cy abou t t h e y ear of

h er son ’ s f

i r s t k i dn appi n g m ay h av e been a ty pog r aph i cal er

r or , P eti ti on er ’ s

2des cr i pti on s of wh at o ccu r r ed on each

occas i on al s o wer e i n con s i s ten t. H er

or i g i n al appl i cati on s t ated th at h er s on was " taken ou

t f r om s ch ool an d pu

t i n a

bl ack tr u ck" bu t pr ov i ded n o date or addi ti on al detai l

. T h e appl i cati on s ai d n oth i n g

abou t P eti ti on er h er s el f bei n g i n con tact wi th car tel m em

ber s

. B u t i n a

s u ppl em en tal decl ar ati o n , P eti ti on er s tated th at th e car tel ki d n apped h er s on twi ce,

an d each ti m e ar

m ed car t el m em

ber s m et P eti ti on er at h er s on ’ s s ch ool an d took

h er t o th e h ou s e wh er e th ey wer e h ol di n g h i m

. T h en , at h er m er i ts h ear i n g ,

P eti ti on er tes ti f

i ed th at g i r l s f

r om h er s on ’ s s ch ool
, n ot car tel m em ber s , f i r s t tol d

h er t h at h e h ad been taken

. S h e tes ti f i ed th at b oth ti m es th e car tel h ad cal l ed h er at

h er h om e an d h ad com e t

h er e to take h er to h er son

. T h e tes ti m on y of P eti t i on er ’ s

wi t n es s es di d n ot su f

f i ci en tl y cor r obor ate an

y of P eti ti on er ’ s v er s i on s of th e ev en ts

.

P eti ti on er tes ti f i ed th at th e ki dn appi n g s pr o m pted h er f l i g h t to th e Un i ted

S tates , so th os e ev en

ts wer e cen

tr al to h er cl ai m s f

or r el i ef

. T h e d i s cr epan ci es i n

h er d es cr i pti on s , th en , ar e n o t tr i v i al

. S ee S h r es th a, 590 F

. 3d at 1 046–47
( ex pl ai n i n g th at i n cas es g o v er n ed by th e RE A L I D A ct, " i n con s i s ten ci es n o l on g er

n eed to g o to th e h ear t of th e peti ti on er ’ s cl ai m , [ bu t] wh en an i n con s i s ten cy i s at

th e h ear t of th e cl ai m i t dou btl es s i s of g r eat wei g h

t

. " )

.

P eti ti on er h ad n oti ce an d an oppor

tu n i ty to ex pl ai n th e i n con s i s ten ci es

. S ee

Ren v

. H o l d er , 648 F .3d 1079, 1092 n

. 14 ( 9th Ci r

. 2011) ( n oti n g th at th e ag en cy

3m

u st adv i s e a peti t i on er th at h er cr edi bi l i t y i s qu es ti o n abl e an d g i v e h er an

oppor t u n i ty to ex p l ai n b ef or e r el y i n g o n an i n con si s ten cy to s u ppor t an adv er s e

cr edi bi l i ty d eter

m i n ati on )

. T h e B I A an d I J pr oper l y con s i der ed P eti ti on er ’ s

ex pl an ati on s bef

or e m aki n g th ei r deci si o n s

. S ee Ri zk, 629 F

. 3 d at 1088.

P eti ti on er ’ s ex

pl an ati o n s do n ot com

pel a con tr ar y con cl u si o n

. 8 U. S

. C.

§ 1252( b) ( 4) ( B )

.

I n th e abs en ce of cr edi b l e tes ti m on y f r o m P eti ti on er , th e tes ti m on y of h er

oth er wi tn es s es an d th e docu m en tar y ev i den ce wer e n ot s u f

f i ci en t to m eet

P eti ti on er ’ s bu

r den o f p r o v i n g p as t per s ecu ti on or th at th er e i s a cl ear pr obabi l i ty of

f u tu r e per s ecu

ti on

. We, th er ef

or e, den y th e peti ti on as to t

h e cl ai m s f

or as y l u m an d

wi t h h ol di n g of r em ov al

.
3. S u bs tan ti al ev i den ce al s o s u

p por ts th e B I A ’ s deter

m i n ati on th at P eti ti on er

di d n ot dem

on s tr ate el i g i bi l i t

y f or CA T r el i ef

. S ee S h r es th a, 590 F

. 3d at 1048–49
( stati n g stan dar d of r ev i ew an d CA T s tan dar d)

. P eti ti on er ’ s CA T cl ai m was

pr em i sed " o n t h e s am e s tatem

en ts

. . . th at th e B I A deter

m i n ed to be n o t cr edi bl e. "

F ar ah v

. A s h cr of

t, 348 F

. 3d 1153, 1157 ( 9th Ci r

. 2003)

. T h e B I A pr oper l y

con s i der ed th e r ecor d ev i den ce i n depen den t o f P eti ti on er ’ s di s cr edi ted tes t i m on y

an d con cl u ded th at i t was n ot s u f f i ci en t to es t abl i sh t

h at P eti ti on er was m

or e l i kel y

4th an n ot to be tor t u r ed i f r em ov ed. I d. T h

u s , w e al so den

y th e peti ti on

as to th e

CA T cl ai m

. S ee S h

r es th a, 590 F

. 3d at 1049.

P ETI TI O N DENI ED.

5