N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R EB EC A ELIZAB ETH GUZM AN,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72951 Age n c y No. A099-049-519 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 16, 2022 ** La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : KLEINFELD, D.M . FISHER , *** and B ENNETT, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r R e be c a

Guz m an a

rgue s tha t the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) wrongly

a ffirm e d the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) a dve rse c re dibility 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.de te rm i nation. Guzm an a lso a rgue s tha t the B IA wrongly

re je c te d the pa

rtic ula r soc i a l group tha

t she propose d to show m e m be rship in for purpose s of a sy lum :

“ poor une duc a te d . . . Sa lva d oran fe m a le s who we re in a busive re lationships a

t the ha nds of the ir husba

nds or e x-husba

nds.” W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd de ny the pe tition. B e c a

use substa

ntia l e vide n c e supports the B IA’ s a ffirm anc e of the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination, we do not re a c h the issue of Guz m an’ s soc ia l group. W e re vie w fa c tua l de te rm inations unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, a c c ording to whic h findings a re c onc lusive “ unle ss a

ny re a sona

ble a d j udic a tor would be c om

pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry . ” Garland v . Ming Dai , 141 S. C t. 1669, 1677 (2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B )). Though we are lim ite d to a re vie w of the B oa

rd’ s re a soning, weare not limite d to re vie wing only the e vide nc e that the B oa rd e xpre ssly

ide n tifie s. Se e Ramire

z-Villalpando v. Holde r , 645 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2011). W h e n we a sse ss a dve rse c re dibility findings, we c onside r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s. Alam v . Garland

, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th C ir. 2021) (e n ba

nc ). In this c a se , the B IA note d tha t Guz m an om itte d a signific ant de ta il from the a ffidav it a

tta c he d to he r a sy l um

a pplic a tion, viz ., tha

t she pe rsona lly re c e i ve d thre a te ning phonec a lls from m e m be rs of the ga

ng. Though Guz

m an’ s a ffidavit 2doe s sa

y tha t she re c e ive d thre a ts for he l ping he r brothe r e sc a pe ga ng viole nc e , it ne ve rthe le ss om its tha

t she c ontinue d to re c e ive thre at s by phone c a ll, ove r the c ourse of five y e ars, e ve n a fte r he r brothe r wa s c a ught a n d kille d. M ore o ve r, whe re a s the a ffidavit c la i m s tha t Guz m an be ga n re c e iving thre a ts from

the m om e nt she took he r brothe r in, Guz m an c ontra d ic te d tha

t c la i m whe n she te stifie d tha

t she only be ga n to re c e ive thre a ts a fte r he r brothe r die d . The B IA furthe r note d tha t Guz m a n m isle d a C a lifornia

divorc e c ourt. Guz m an file d for divorc e in 2014, a t whic h tim e she subm itte d a sha re d c ustody a gre e m e nt a

nd visita tion sc he dule . Guz m an kne wtha t those doc um e nts we re m isle a ding be c a

u se she kne w tha

t he r husba

n d ha d be e n

de porte d. Guz m an a dm itte d to m i sle a ding the divorc e c ourt to m ore e a sily se c ure the divorc e . Guz m an’ s history

of m isle a ding a

tribuna l a

nd he r inc onsiste n t na

rra tive a bout the thre a ts she re c e ive d am ount to substa ntia l e vide nc e supporting the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. A re a s ona ble a djudic ator would not be c om pe lle d to c onc lude tha

t Guz m an wa s c re dible . Ac c ordingly , we ne e d not re a c h Guz m an’ s soc i a l group a

rgum e nts. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

3