N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT VIC TOR B R A VO GOM EZ, a

ka Isa be l Franc o Pe re a ,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71178 Age n c y No. A095-787-342 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 Fe brua

ry 6, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

n d M ARB LEY, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED FEB 16 2018 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. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Alge non L. M arble y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.Nic kie B ravo-Gom e z , pre viously known a s Vic t or B ravo-Gom e z , a ppe a ls a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing the de c ision of the im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de ny ing he r a p plic a t ions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings, inc luding a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations, for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ai Jun Zhi v. Holde r, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014). A finding is not supporte d by substa

ntia l e v i de nc e whe n

“ any re a sona

ble a d j udic a tor would bec om

pe lle d to c o nc lude to the c ontra ry ba se d on the e v ide n c e in the re c o rd.” B ringa s-R odrigue z v. Se ssions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting Zhi, 751 F.3d a t 1091) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om i tte d). Le ga l c o nc lusions a re re vie we d de nov o . Id. 1. The B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The B IA re lie d in pa rt on the inc onsiste nc ie s in M s. B ravo-Gom e z ’ s de sc riptions of a

n atta c k tha

t a l le ge dly

oc c urre d in Fe brua

ry of 2011. She first sta te d tha t she wa s atta c k e d by

one m an insidea c lub, but la te r stat e d tha

t she wa s a tta c k e d by two m e n outsideof the c lub. The B IA’ s re lia nc e on the se m a te ria l inc o nsiste nc i e s is suffic ie nt to support its a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. Lia nhua Jia ng v. Holde r, 754 F.3d 733, 738–39 (9th C ir. 2014). B e c a use one 2inc o nsiste nc y is e n ough to support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding, we ne e d not e xam ine the re m a i ning grounds ide ntifie d by the B IA. Id. 2. The B IA did not e rr in finding insuffic ie nt c orroborating e vide nc e to ove rc o m e the IJ’ s a d

v e rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation. Noneof the proffe re d e vide nc e c o rroborate s the Fe brua ry 2011 a tta c k in suffic ie nt de ta i l. B e c a use the IJ did not find M s. B ravo-Gom e z ’ s te stim ony c re d ible , she wa s not e ntitle d to notic e and opportunity

to obta in suc h e vide n c e . Se e B hatta ra i v. Ly nc h , 835 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ The notic e -and-opportunity re q uire m e nt a

pplie s whe n the a pplic ant’ s te stim ony

is ‘ othe rwise c re dible
. ’ ” (quoting Re n v. Holde r, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th C ir. 2011))). 3. B e c a use the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e an d is suffic ie nt to de ny the a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s, we ne e d not re a c h the B IA’ s a lte rnate ruling tha t re lie f is not wa

rrante d be c a

use M s. B rav o-Gom e z c ould re loc ate in M e x ic o. Shre stha v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 n.6 (9th C ir. 2010). 4. The B IA did not e rr in ruling tha t the IJ a c te d a s a ne utra l fa c t-finde r. M s. B rav o-Gom e z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the IJ e rre d by

pe ppe ring he r with que stions during dire c t a

nd c ross-e xam i nation is c o ntra ry to la w, whic h e xplic itly

a llows IJs to que stion witne sse s. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(1); Antonio-C ruz v. INS, 147 F.3d 31129, 1131 (9th C ir. 1998). Furthe r, e ve n if the IJ e xhibite d bia s towa rd M s . B ravo-Gom e z , the re c ord supports the de nia l of he r c la im s for a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l a nd thus there wa s no pre

judic e , whic h is re quire d to suc c e e d on a

due proc e ss c la im . Lia

nhua Jia ng, 754 F.3d a

t 741. 5. The B IA e rre d, howe ve r, by not a pply ing the prope r le ga l sta nda rds to its ana ly sis of M s. B ravo-Gom e z ’ s c la im for re lie f unde r C AT. C AT c la im s a re

“ an a lytic a lly

se pa ra te ” from

a sy lum c la im s. Kam a ltha s v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th C ir. 2001). It is not c le ar from the B IA’ s orde r—

whe re in the B IA a ffirm s the IJ’ s C AT finding in a single , c o nc l usory

se nte nc e
—

that the B oa rd c onside re d the fa c tors in 8 C
. F.R . § 1208.16 (c )(3) a s re quire d. M ore ove r, the B IA inc o rre c t ly

pla c e d the burde n on M s. B ravo-Gom e z to e sta blish tha t re loc a tion in M e x ic o would beim

possible
. Se e M a ldona do v. Ly nc h, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t § 1208.16(c )(2) “ doe s not pla c e a burde n on a n a pplic ant to de m onstra

te tha t re loc a tion within the

propose d c ountry

of re m o va l is im possible ” ). And the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination a lone doe s not re q uire de nia l of C AT prote c tion, be c a use “ [i] t is we ll e sta

blishe d tha

t . . . a n a dve rse c re d ibility

finding doe s not a lwa

y s ba r C AT re lie f.” Eny ing Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1167 n.6 (9th C ir. 2013).

4The re fore , we DE N Y M s . B ravo-Gom e z ’ s pe tition for re lie f a s to a sy lum an d withholding of re m ova l, but G RANT the p e tition a s to the C AT c la im and re m and to the B IA for furthe r proc e e dings. Pe tition DE NIE D in pa

rt a nd G RANT E D in pa

rt a nd RE M ANDE D. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l
.

5