N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NOEL AGUSTIN C ARB ALLO,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-72177 Age n c y No. A205-491-065 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 Se pte m

be r 15, 2023 * * Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R . NELSON, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Noe l Agustin C a

rba llo (“ C a

rba l lo” ), a

native and c itiz e n of Nic ara gua , pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). The B IA a ffirm e d the im

m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) finding tha t C arba llo’ s te stim ony 

# F IL ED OCT 13 2023 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).wa s not c re dible
. In the a bse n c e of c re d ible te stim ony , the B IA a ffirm e d the de nia l of C arba llo’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im
. The B IA a l so a ffirm e d the IJ’ s a lte rnative holding tha

t C arba llo did not e sta

blish a ne x us to a

prote c te d ground. Fina lly , the B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de nia l of C arba llo’ s c la im for re l ie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ) be c a use his te s tim ony

wa s not c re d ible and he did not show tha

t it is more like l y

tha n not tha t he would be torture d if re turne d to Nic ara gua . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings unde rly ing the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation. Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a pply the sa

m e sta nda rd to a de te rm ination tha

t a pe titione r is not e ligible for withholding of rem ova l or C AT prote c tion. Planc arte Sauc e da v . Garland

, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th C ir. 2022).

“ To pre va il unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, the pe titione r m

ust show tha

t the e vide n c e not only

supports, but c om

pe l s the c onc lusion tha

t the s e findings a

nd de c isions a

re e rrone ous.” Planc arte Sauc e da v
. Garland

, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th C ir. 2022) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). W e de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination.

“ [A] n a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination m

u st be m a de a fte r c o nside ring the tota lity of c irc um sta

nc e s , a nd a ll re le va

nt fa c tors.” S

hre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034,
21040 (9th C ir. 2010). Inc o nsiste nc ie s tha t form the ba sis for the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation c an be re lative ly m inor a nd ne e d not go to the he art of pe titione r’ s c la im for re lie f. Alam v . Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2021) (e n ba nc ). The IJ c ite d at le a s t thre e spe c ific inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n C arba llo’ s a pplic a tion a

nd his ora l te s tim ony

be fore the IJ. First, C arba llo te stifie d tha t in 2005, ga ng m e m be rs a s sa ulte d him during a robbe ry and atta c ke d

him with a bottle a fte r he re fuse d the ga

ng’ s re c ruitm e nt a

tte m pts. B ut his written a

pplic a tion did not inc lude any

inform a t ion a

bout the se inc ide nts. Se c ond, C arba llo te stifie d tha t his brothe r wa s ne arly

kille d by a ga n g whe n ga ng m e m be rs sought informa tion a bout C arba llo’ s whe re a

bouts a nd tha t this influenc e d his de c ision to le ave Nic ara gua . His writte n a

pplic a tion did not inc lude this inform a tion a nd inste a d sta te d tha t he le ft Nic ara gua

be c a use of a disputewith his ne ighbor. Third, C arba llo te stifie d tha

t his ne ighbor wa s ne ve r dange rous a nd tha t the y re solve d the dispute , de spite the fa c t tha t his written

a pplic a tion c ite d the dispute a s his re a son for le aving Nic ara gua . Whe n a ske d by the IJ to e xpla in this discre p a n c y , C arba llo be c am e e va sive and did not offe r an e xpla nation. B e c a use C a rba llo la c ke d c re dible te stim ony to support his withholding of re m ova l c la im , we a ffirm the B IA’ s de n ia l of his withholding of re m o va l c la im
. Rodrigue z-Ramire z v . Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th C ir. 2021) (pe r c uriam ) 3(“ Substa

ntia l e v ide n c e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t without c re dible te stim ony , R odrigue z -R am ire z fa ile d to e s ta blish e ligibility

for a sy l um

or withholding of rem o v a l.” ). W e ne e d not re a c h the IJ’ s a lte rnative holding tha t C arba llo’ s c la im la c ke d a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. W e a lso a ffirm

the B IA’ s de nia l of C arba llo’ s C A T c l a im ba s e d on the a dve rse c re dibility

finding. C arba llo did not e s ta blish, a s re quire d unde r 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2), that it wa s m ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d if re turne d to Nic ara gua . Singh v . Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th C ir. 2015), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Alam v . Garland

, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th C ir. 2021) (“ Singh’ s c la im unde r the C AT is ba se d on the sa m e sta t e m e nts he m a de re ga

rding his c la i m s for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l . Thus, it wa s prope r for the IJ a nd the B IA to re ly on the sa m e a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation in de ny ing a ll of his c la im s.” ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4