United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-61173

Summary Calendar

Maria Domingo-Torrez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 371 962

Before Davis, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maria Domingo-Torrez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing her appeal from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) 

concluding that she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61173 Document: 00516401858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the 

IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and on that basis, concluded that 

Domingo-Torrez had failed to establish an eligibility for relief.

Acknowledging that there were some inconsistencies in her accounts 

of the facts regarding her claim that she was kidnaped and raped in 

Guatemala, Domingo-Torrez challenges the BIA’s credibility determination, 

arguing that she should have been considered a credible witness in light of all 

the circumstances because her testimony was largely consistent, she is 

illiterate, she was forced to use multiple translators in preparing her written 

statement, and she was being asked to recall traumatic events. She asserts 

that she is entitled to asylum because her membership in a particular social 

group was one central reason for the past persecution she suffered. 

Domingo-Torrez also argues that her treatment by the perpetrators warrants 

CAT relief.

Here, the IJ and the BIA cited “specific and cogent reasons derived 

from the record” to support the adverse credibility determination. Singh v.

Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Domingo-Torrez has failed to demonstrate that it is clear 

from the totality of the circumstances that no reasonable factfinder could 

make an adverse credibility ruling in her case. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, the adverse credibility determination is 

supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 536-40.

Without credible evidence, there was no basis for the BIA to grant 

asylum or withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 

1994). Further, although an adverse credibility determination is not 

necessarily dispositive of a CAT claim, Domingo-Torrez has pointed to “no 

independent, non-testimonial evidence going to the likelihood of torture,” 

and therefore the adverse credibility finding is also decisive of her CAT 

Case: 20-61173 Document: 00516401858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021)

(quotation on 598). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-61173 Document: 00516401858 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2022