NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GONZALO MENDOZA MATIAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71478 

Agency No. A087-536-498 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: SILER,*** CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Gonzalo Mendoza-Matias, an indigenous Mayan man from Guatemala, 

seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 9 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

request for protection from removal in withholding proceedings. He challenges the 

immigration judge’s (IJ) determination that he is not credible and asserts that he 

should be granted withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the 

petition for review.

We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We look to the “totality 

of the circumstances [] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 

1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The court must deny 

a petition for review unless the petitioner has presented “evidence ‘so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could find’” that petitioner has not established 

eligibility. Singh v. INS., 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992)). The BIA’s determination of eligibility 

for withholding of removal is reviewed for substantial evidence. Shrestha, 590 

F.3d at 1039.

Mendoza-Matias argues that the agency’s adverse credibility

determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that he is entitled to 

withholding of removal and CAT relief. He claims he suffered past persecution 

due to resisting gang recruitment, attempting to vote, and being Catholic. 
3 

Mendoza-Matias has not shown that the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ referred to specific 

instances in the record to support his adverse credibility determination. The IJ 

explained Mendoza-Matias had a history of lying to immigration officials. The IJ 

explained, for instance, how Mendoza-Matias had “given [i]mmigration [o]fficials 

different names at different times, depending on the situation.” Because of the 

different names and different stories told by Mendoza-Matias, the IJ was not “even 

clear” what his true name was. The IJ further noted it was unclear whether 

Mendoza-Matias is from Mexico or Guatemala and whether his best language is 

Mam or Spanish as he answered those questions in many different ways to 

different immigration officers. The IJ also found Mendoza-Matias was 

embellishing his story to suit whatever question presented to him. He initially 

identified as Latino but then said he was persecuted because he was indigenous. 

He initially indicated he was persecuted by gang members and then claimed to fear 

Guatemalan soldiers. Before the IJ, he expanded his claim of persecution to being 

beaten when he attempted to vote, even though the majority of his town is of 

Mayan descent, and also claimed that he was beaten for being Catholic. Given the 

list of inconsistencies identified by the IJ, Mendoza-Matias has not shown that the 

adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. 
4 

Mendoza-Matias’ claims of past persecution based on religion, political 

opinion, and membership in a particular social group are not persuasive. 

Mendoza-Matias has not shown that “indigenous, Guatemala male Mayan[s] who 

oppose[] forced gang recruitment” constitutes a cognizable social group. He 

claims that police beat him when he attempted to vote and that Guatemalan police 

are prejudicial against Catholics but offered no corroborating evidence to support 

his claims. 

When a petitioner’s claim under CAT is based on the same evidence that 

was found not credible, the rejection of petitioner’s CAT claim must be affirmed. 

Farrah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the adverse 

credibility finding relating to Mendoza-Matias’ name, identity, and place of origin 

completely undermines his claim that he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. 

Moreover, he offered no corroborating evidence that he is likely to be tortured if 

returned to Guatemala. He has not shown that the agency erred in denying his 

relief under CAT.

The petition for review is DENIED.