NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA ELISA BARAJAS CARILLO,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73463 Agency No. A091

- 691

- 867

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2021 * * Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, ** * District Judge. Petitioner Martha Elisa Barajas Carillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the

* 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).

*** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying withholding of removal and protection
under the Conven tion Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252( a) and deny the petition.
“We review ‘ denials of

. . . withholding of removal [] and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. ’ ” Ling Huang v.
Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) ( quoting Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) ). “Credibility determinations are reviewed for
substantial evidence.” Bassene v. Holder , 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013).

“ Under the substantial evi dence standard, a n adverse credibility fin ding is

‘ conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. ’ ” Id. ( quoting Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) ).
S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s determination
that Petitioner was not credible. In a s worn s tatement to an immigration official at the border, Petitioner stated she had no fear s or concern s about being returned to
Mexico and that she would not be harmed if s he returned

. She stated she had

“ been going back and forth to Mexico to see [ her ] husband. ” Her testimony at the withholding of removal proceedings included “[m]aterial alterations in [her] account of persecution [, which] are sufficient to support an adverse credibili ty finding .” Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner3

testified that she and her son had been kidnapped by her husband in California and
taken to Tijuana, Mexico, where they were held at her husband’s mother’s home against their w ill for approximately two weeks. She testified that she was beaten and sexually assaulted during that period. She testified that she escaped with her
mother

- in

- law’s assistance and drove to the border with her son and another man her husband had kidnappe d. When asked why she did not tell the officer at the border about any of this, she stated, “I was afraid. I was already

– I, I had trusted somebody in TJ, sir, an agent, a federal agent to save me from that place, and the only thing that happened to me, that agent called my husband and beat

– my
husband beat me. ” The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s decision denying withholding of
removal based on an adverse credibility determination, finding Petitioner “provided inconsistent statements in support of her claim.” The BIA noted that the
IJ “found that the applicant was unable to adequately explain why she failed to report the alleged abuse

. . . to immigration officials.” 1 Because Petitioner first

1 The IJ considered Petitioner’s explanations that she was “nervous” and that she eith er could not remember being asked whether she feared being returned to her home country or did not understand the question but found “there is no reason to believe that she could not have answered the questions” despite her nervousness, and that she did not “explain why she would not have understood the question.” The IJ , therefore , found these inconsistencies made Petitioner’s testimony of fear
o f persecution not credible and not reliable.4

“affirmatively denied” a fear of returning to Mexico and later expressed that precise fear , no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude Petitioner
is credible. See Li v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) , superseded on other grounds by statute , 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B )(iii). The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of CAT protection because the inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony made her not credible. Thus, we uphold the denial of CAT protection because Petitioner has not established that the
country conditions, standing alone, compel a contrary result. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048

– 49 (9th Cir. 2010)
PETITION DENIED.