NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN JIMENEZ DIEGES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72959 

Agency No. A208-308-205 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Adrian Jimenez Dieges, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

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

* 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

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72959 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

2010). We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process 

violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies between Jimenez Dieges’s declaration and testimony as to 

details of the alleged gas station robbery, specifically, whether the robbers had a

weapon with bullets, whether Jimenez Dieges arrived with cash, and what the 

robbers demanded from him. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d. at 1048 (concluding adverse 

credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). 

Jimenez Dieges’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. 

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the 

agency’s determination that Jimenez Dieges did not present documentary evidence 

that would otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 

F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding applicant’s documentary evidence was 

insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony). Thus, in the absence of credible 

testimony, in this case, Jimenez Dieges’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
3 20-72959 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because, 

even if credible, Jimenez Dieges failed to show it is more likely than not he would 

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to 

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The BIA did not err in denying Jimenez Dieges’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claim where Jimenez Dieges failed to establish prejudice. See RojasGarcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (“For [petitioner] to state a 

valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show prejudice.”). 

Jimenez Dieges’s contentions that his right to due process was otherwise violated 

also fail. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due 

process claim). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.