NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE FRANCISCO MEJIA FUENTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-1726

Agency No.

A209-447-171

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2024

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: M. SMITH, BENNETT, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jose Francisco Mejia Fuentes, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) denial of deferral of 

removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the [immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”)] reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

APR 19 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations. Dawson v. 

Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 878 (9th Cir. 2021); Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 

1007 (9th Cir. 2017). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not 

recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We deny 

the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination based on several inconsistencies in Mejia Fuentes’s testimony. See

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that adverse 

credibility determinations must be made based on the “totality of the 

circumstances, and all relevant factors” including demeanor, candor, 

responsiveness, plausibility, and inconsistency). In his testimony before the IJ, 

Mejia Fuentes could not remember whether his attackers threatened him with a 

gun, even though he had testified at his credible fear interview that he was 

threatened with both a gun and knife. Mejia Fuentes also testified that he was 

hospitalized for seven days after the attack, although the hospital records show that 

he only stayed for three days. There was also inconsistent testimony about 

whether Edwin Morales, the drug dealer who threatened Mejia Fuentes, went into 

hiding after a warrant was issued for his arrest. These inconsistencies are 

sufficient to sustain the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Dawson, 998 
3

F.3d at 878 (“To reverse a factual finding, the evidence must ‘compel’ a 

conclusion different from the one which the [agency] reached.”).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s overall CAT 

determination, as the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Mejia Fuentes 

will “more likely than not be tortured” if returned to Guatemala. Xochihua-Jaimes 

v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020) (“To be eligible for relief under CAT, 

an applicant bears the burden of establishing that she will more likely than not be 

tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her 

native country.”).

Mejia Fuentes contends that the agency denied CAT relief based solely on 

the adverse credibility determination, but the record does not support that claim. 

Along with the adverse credibility determination, the BIA explicitly considered

that “[Mejia Fuentes’s] other similarly situated family members, which include his 

mother, father, brother, and sister, remain unharmed in Guatemala.” Based on this, 

the BIA concluded that “[a]s [Mejia Fuentes] did not meet his burden of proof 

overall, we agree with the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny his CAT request.”

PETITION DENIED.