N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DOR IS C ARR ER O B UENO, AKA Sofia Ade la Gua da rra m a Ariz m e ndi, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-73268 Age n c y No. A088-490-471 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 April 18, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, B EA, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Doris C a rre ro B ue no (“ C arre ro” ), native and c itiz e n of C olom bia , pe titions for re vie w of the orde r of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing he r a ppe a l from an im

m i gration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic a tion for 

# FIL ED APR 23 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation ba se d upon C arre ro’ s fa i lure to c la im a fe ar of pe rse c ution on a

ny of he r pre vious trips to the

Unite d State s, de spite c la im s tha t she wa s be ing pe rse c ute d by the Fue rz a s Arm a d a s R e voluc iona ria s de C o lom

bia (“ FAR C ” ). 1 Se e Riv e ra v . Muk ase y , 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th C ir. 2007). C arre ro a lle g e s tha t the FAR C be ga n thre a te ning he r we e kly

with re g ard to he r e x-husba nd’ s loc a tion sta

rting in 2003. Ye t, from

2006 through 2010, C a

rre ro fa ile d

to a sse rt tha

t she fe are d re turning to C olom

bia on a ny of he r trips to the

Unite d Stat e s. Nota

b ly , she fa ile d to a s se rt a fe ar of re turning to C olom bia in 2007 whe n she a d

m itte d to im

m igration offic ia ls tha

t she did not disc lose on he r visa a pplic a tion tha

t she ha d c hildre n in the U nite d State s, a

nd she fa ile d to a sse rt a

fe ar of re turning during the subse que nt c rim ina l proc e e dings a ga inst he r in light of tha t a dm ission. Further, whe n C arre ro e nte re d the Unite d State s in 2010 using fa l se doc um e nts, she de nie d ha ving a fe ar

1 The B IA a lso re fe re nc e d othe r inc o nsiste nt te stim ony and C a rre ro’ s fa ilure to c o rroborate he r c la im s to support the a d ve rse c re dibility

finding. B e c a

u se we c an de ny the pe tition if a

single ground is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , we do not a ddre ss the B IA’ s a dditiona l findings. S e e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th C ir. 2011). 2of re t

urning to C olom

bia until he r c hildre n visite d he r in de te ntion. C arre ro wa s c onfronte d with theinc onsiste nc y , a nd the IJ re a s ona

bly re je c te d C arre ro’ s e xpla nation for why

she fa ile d to a s se rt a

fe a r of re turning to C olom

bia during a ny of he r re turn trips. Se e Rizk , 629 F.3d a

t 1088. There c ord doe s not c om pe l us to re a c h a c ontra ry re sult. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); s e e also Zamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011). In thea bse nc e of c re dible te stim o ny , C arre ro’ s c la im s for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l fa il. 2 Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t C arre ro fa ile d to e sta blish e l igibility

for C AT re l ie f. B e c a

use C arre ro’ s C AT c la i m

is ba s e d on the sam e te stim ony

tha t the IJ found to benot c re dible , it fa i ls a s we l l. Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th C ir. 2006). C arre ro points to no othe r re c o rd e vide nc e tha

t the IJ or the B IA should ha ve c onside re d to support her C AT c la im . Se e Farah , 348 F.3d a t 1157. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 B e c a use C arre ro’ s a sy lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il, we ne e d not re a c h the B IA’ s a lte rnat ive finding tha t C arre ro fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the C olom bia n gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to c ontrol theFAR C . 3