NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE SALCIDO -RIOS , Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 71665 Agency No. A 36

- 650

- 156

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2022 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and BURNS, ** * District Judge. Jose Guadalupe Salcido

- Rios appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an i mmigration j udge ’s (“IJ”) decision

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel previously granted Respondent’s joint motion to submit this case on the briefs. ( See Doc. 40).

*** The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 3 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “ Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions ,” Bhattarai v. Lynch , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016), and uphold the factual findings therein “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary .”
Id. ( citation omitted ).
1

. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Adjudicators must assess an applicant’s credibility “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Our review
consider s whether the adjudicator properly applied this standard. Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 113 7 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)

. Here, it was not error for the BIA to
sustain the IJ’s finding that Petitioner ’ s testimony was not credible. Substantial evidence supports the IJ ’ s conclusions that Petitioner omi tted four of his felony convictions from his asylum application ; he failed to provide a plausible explanation
for not revealing , prior to his hearing, his allegation that assailants had threatened him by putting a gun in his mouth ; and he gave an implausib le account of a beating
that he allegedly suffered

. 2

. After discounting Petitioner’s testimony, the only evidence remaining in support of his CAT claim w as of conditions in Mexico. Such evidence “can play a decisive role in granting relief under [CAT],” but it must still “ meet the high3 threshold of establishing that it is more likely than not that . . . [the applicant] personally will face torture if he returns.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 927

– 28 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted)

. To reverse the BIA’s ruling affirm ing the IJ’s decision, “ we would have to find that the [country conditions] reports alone compelled the conclusion that [the petitioner] is more likely than not to be tortured. ” Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 922

– 23 (9th Cir. 2006)

. Although the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the country

conditions evidence , the BIA corrected th e error on appeal and conclud ed that the country

- conditions evidence was insufficient under the correct standard. Because
Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he face d a greater risk
of torture than other inhabitants of Mexico , the BIA did not err in holding that the country

- conditions evidence did not meet the required standard.
PETITION D ENIED
.