N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OM A R ALB ER TO B ENAVIDES, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72141 Age n c y No. A094-190-392
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 i tte d Oc tobe r 5, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SEEB OR G, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
OCT 7 2021 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R ic ha rd Se e borg, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.Pe titione r Om a r B e navide s, a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, se e ks re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (" B IA" ) de c ision a ffirm ing theim m igration judge ’ s (" IJ" ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Against Torture(" C AT" ). W e de ny the pe tition. 1 1. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e Shre stha

v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th C i r. 2010) (sta ting sta nda rd of re v ie w). B e c a

use the B IA a gre e d with the IJ’ s de c i sion a nd a d de d its own obse rvations, were vie w both theB IA’ s de c ision a nd the IJ’ s de c ision. Nuru v. Gonz a le z , 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th C ir. 2005). The IJ a nd the B IA note d inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Pe titione r’ s writte n a nd
ora l sta te m e nts. For e xam

ple , in Pe titione r’ s de c la

ration, hewrote tha

t he " brie fly took off [his] shirt" one n i ght, a fte r a ba rte nde r told him

tha t he should ne ve r displa y his ta ttoos be c a use ga ng m e m be rs would ta

rge t him . In the de c la

ration, he linke d his de c ision to ta

ke off his shirt tha

t night with a

n inc ide nt two we e ks la

te r, whe n the polic e c am e to his house and sa id tha

t ga ngs we re going to kill him be c a use of his ta

ttoos. B ut a

t the he aring, Pe t itione r te stifie d tha t he took his shirt off at noon, in public , a

nd tha t pe ople ne a

rby sa w his ta ttoos a s a re sult. Pe titione r
argue s tha

t the inc onsiste n c y

is im m ate ria l a nd ha s no be aring on his c re d ibility
.

1 W e a lso de ny

Pe titione r’ s m otion for a

sta y of re m ova l. 2W e disa gre e . The disc re pa nc y is not trivia

l be c a use Pe titione r’ s c la i m s for re lie f
are p re m i se d on his fe ar that the polic e or ga ng m e m be rs will pe rc e ive him

to be a ga ng m e m be r be c a use of his ta

ttoos. Ac c ordingly , the m anne r in whic h by s ta nde rs
and the polic e be c am e aware of his ta ttoos is re le va

nt. C f. Shre s tha , 590 F.3d a t 1046–47 (9th C ir. 2010) (" Although inc onsiste nc ie s no longe r ne e d to go to the he art of the pe titione r’ s c la im , whe n a n inc onsiste nc y

is a t the he art of the c la im

it doubtle ss is of gre at we ight." ). As a n othe r e xam

ple , Pe titione r offe re d inc o nsiste nt sta te m e nts re ga

rding whe re he fle d a fte r gang m e m be rs be at him

at a re sta urant. Pe titione r’ s de c la

ration sta te d tha t, a fte r le aving thehospital whe re he re c e ive d tre atm e nt for his injurie s, he did not wa

nt to e nda nge r his a unt by re turning to her house , so he we nt to Soy a pa ngo, El Sa lva dor, whe re he sta y e d with his a

unt’ s frie n d for two da

y s be fore he took a bus to Gua

te m a la . Ye t during the he aring, Pe titione r te stifie d tha t he bought his bus tic

ke t in Sa n Sa l va dor. W

he n the gove rnm e nt pointe d out the inc o nsiste nc y , Pe t itione r te stifie d tha t he ha d stoppe d in Soy a

pa ngo to ge t a bus tic ke t a nd " wa sn’ t the re at a ll." Although Pe titione r ga ve e xpla nations for some of the i nc onsiste nc ie s, the a ge n c y wa s not re q

uire d to be l ie ve him
. Se e Jibril v. Gonz a le s, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th C ir. 2005) (" [A] n IJ m u st be a llowe d to
e xe rc ise c om

m on se nse in re

j e c ting a pe titione r’ s te s tim ony

. . . ." ). 3Furthe r, Pe titione r e xhibite d a la c k of re sponsive ne ss a s to whe the r he ha d be e n a ga ng m e m be r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii) (" C onside ring thetota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s, a n d a ll re le va

nt fa c tors, a

trie r of fa c t m ay

ba se a c re dibility de te rm i nation on the

de m e anor, c andor, or re sponsive ne ss of thea p plic ant . . . ." ). The IJ a s ke d Pe titione r whe the r he ha d e v e r be e n a m e m

b e r of a ga n g. Pe titione r’ s
re sponsewa s tha

t he " ha d a

lot of frie nds in sc hool." Afte r the IJ note d tha t Pe titione r ha d not a

n swe re d the que s tion, a

n d re pe ate d

the que stion, Pe titione r de nie d tha

t he e ve r wa s a g a

ng m e m be r. Although Pe titione r lat e r a c knowle dge d that his first a nswe r " wa s se e m ingly

irre le va nt," he now sugge sts tha

t he answe re d the IJ’ s que stion indire c tly . Pe titione r indisputa bly did not a nswe r the IJ’ s que stion. Ac c ordingly , his e va sive ne ss supports the a dve rse c re d ibility finding. Se e Singh v. Ashc roft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th C ir. 2002) (" To support a n
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion ba se d on unre sponsive n e ss, theB IA [or IJ] m ust ide ntify pa rtic ula r insta nc e s in there c o rd whe re the [a pplic a nt ] re fuse d to a

nswe r que stions a ske d

of him ." ). In sum , the c om

b i nation of inc onsiste nc ie s a nd e va sive te stim ony

c onstitute s substa ntia l e vide nc e supporting the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. The
a ge nc y prope rly

c onside re d " t

he tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s a nd a ll re le va

nt fa c t ors." 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). Pe titione r ha s fa ile d to show tha t the 4re c o rd c om

pe ls us to re a c h a

c ontra ry c onc l usion. Se e Don v. Gonz a l e s, 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th C ir. 2007) (" Although a re a sona b le fa c tfinde r c ould ha

ve found Pe titione r c re dible , no suc h finding is c o m

pe lle d by the e vide n c e ." (e m

pha se s
om i tte d)). 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de n ia l of Pe titione r’ s
c la im for prote c tion under C AT. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a t 1048 (sta ting sta nda rd of re v ie w). " An a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination is not ne c e ssa rily a de at h kne ll to C AT prote c t ion." Id. B ut be c a use Pe titione r’ s te s tim ony wa s not c re d ible , othe r
e vide nc e in there c ord m

ust c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t he " is m ore like l y

tha n not to be torture d." Se e id. a

t 1048–49. The IJ a nd B IA re a sone d tha

t, a lthough e xte nsive viole nc e and hum a n rights viola tions oc c ur in El Sa lva dor, the e vide nc e wa s not suffic ie ntly spe c ific to Pe titione r. W e a gre e . The doc um e nta ry e vide n c e sta

te s tha t, in El Salva dor, suspe c te d ga

ng m e m be rs a re subje c t to unla

w ful killings a

nd tortureby

se c urity forc e s. Tha

t e vide nc e doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione r would be subje c t to suc h tre at

m e nt if re turne d. Se e Dhita l v. Muka se y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam) (disc ussing how a pe t itione r m

ust e sta blish a pa rtic u la riz e d thre at of torturefor a

C A T c la im to suc c e e d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
. 5