N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE C H ALES OR

D ONES, Pe titione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, Re sponde nt. No. 23-45 Age n c y No. A200-106-222 M EM OR 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 a

rc h 28, 2024 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , IKUTA, a

nd FOR REST, C irc uit Judge s 

# F IL ED APR 1 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).Jose C ha le s Ordone s, 1 a native of Guate m a la

an d a m e m be r of the M am M ay an indige nous c om

m unity , pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r from

the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l of a fina l orde r of re m ova l issue d by an Im m igration Judge(IJ) de ny ing his a pplic ations for a sy l um , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(1), and we de ny the pe tition for
re vie w. In the c irc um sta

n c e s of this c a se , “ [w] e re vie wboth ‘ the re a sons e xplic itly ide n tifie d by

the B IA’ and ‘ the re a soning a rtic ulate d in theIJ’ s ora l de c i sion in support of those

re a sons.’ ” Barse

ghy an v . Garland

, 39 F.4th 1138, 1142 (9th C ir. 2022) (quoting Lai v
. Holde r , 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th C ir. 2014)). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination, whic h wa s a ffirm e d by

the B IA. K

umar v . Garland

, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th C ir. 2021); 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii), § 1252(b)(4)(B ). C ha le s Ordone s’ s te stim ony a bout theGuate m a la

n gove rnm e nt’ s la c k of re sponse to the kidna pping
and m urde r of a M ay a n girl from his c om m unity c ontra dic t e d a

ne ws a rtic le tha t he

1 The Notic e to Appe ar, t

he gove rnm e nt’ s an swe ring brie f, and the a ge nc y de c isions, re fe r to the pe titione r a s “ Jose C ha le s-Ordone s.” The pe titione r’ s a sy lum a pplic ations re fe r to him

a s “ Jose C h a le s Ordone z . ” His ope ning brie f re fe rs to him

a s “ M r. C ha le s ,” but lists his full na m e a s “ J ose C ha le s -Ordone s.” To avoid c onfusion, were fe r to the pe titione r a s “ Jose C ha le s Ordone s.” 2subm itte d a s e vide nc e . The B IA re a sona bly re j e c te d C ha le s Ordone s’ s argum e nt that he did not know a

b o ut this a

rtic le , give n his te stim ony tha t he provide d the doc um e nts re ga

rding the inc ide nt to his a ttorne y . In a ddition, C ha le s Ordone s’ s te stim ony tha t he wa s not flue nt in Spa nish c ontra dic t e d his pre viously file d
a sy lum a pplic ations sta

ting tha t he wa s flue nt in Spa

nish. B e c a

use his te stim ony
and a pplic ations both use d the sa m e word, “ flue nt,” it is irre l e va nt tha t the word

“ flue nt” c ould ha

ve m ultiplem e anings. M ore ove r, C h a le s Ordone s lie d tha t he
wa s from M e xic o , onc e in 2002 to a B orde r Pa t

rol Offic e r, and a

se c ond tim e while unde r oath be fore an IJ at his re m ova l proc e e d ings in 2006. Ly ing to im m igration
a uthoritie s “ a lwa

y s c ounts a s substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporting a n a dve rse c re dibility finding” a bse nt c e rta in e x c e ptions. Singh v . Holde r , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th C i r. 2011). Thosee xc e ptions a re not pre se nt he re , be c a

use C h a le s Ordone s’ s lie unde r oath wa s not m a de “ in orde r to fle e his pla c e of pe rse c ution or se c ure e ntry into the Unite d State s.” Id. (quoting Ak

inmade v . IN S , 196 F.3d 951, 955 (9th C ir. 1999)). Abse nt C h a le s Ordone s’ s c re dible te s tim ony , the re c o rd e v ide nc e a lone doe s not c om pe l us to re a c h a c onc lusion c ontra ry to the a g e nc y ’ s c onc lusion. W e the re fore uphold theB IA’ s rulings a s to a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l . W ith
re spe c t to his C AT c la i m , we m ust c o nside r the e vide nc e a pa rt from the disbe lie ve d te stim ony . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(3) (“ [A] ll e vide nc e re le va nt to the
3possibility

of future torture sha ll be c onside re d . . . .” ); se e also Udo v
. Garland , 32 F.4th 1198, 1202 (9th C ir. 2022) (“ [A pe titione r’ s ] a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation ‘ is not ne c e ssa rily a de ath kne ll to C AT prote c tion’ if othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord a lone e sta

blishe s tha

t he is e ligible for C AT re lie f.” (quoting Shre stha
v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th C i r. 2010))). The c o untry c onditions
e vide nc e in the re c ord is too gene ra l to e sta b lish tha t C ha le s Ordone s in pa

rtic ula r would be torture d if re m ove d to Gua te m a la
. Se e H

u ssain v . Rose n , 985 F.3d 634, 649–50, 650 n.8 (9th C ir. 2021) (noting tha t a n a pplic a n t se e king C AT re lie f m

ust de m onstra

te a “ pa rtic ula riz e d thre at ” of future torture , a n d ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e will not suffic e (c i tation omitte d)). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4