United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60634

Summary Calendar

Ana Maria Castaneda-Alvarez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A 202 144 107

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ana Castaneda-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). She 

avers that the BIA erred in affirming a decision of the immigration judge 

(“IJ”), who made adverse credibility determinations and denied her applica-

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 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

May 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60634 Document: 00515860997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60634

2

tions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review only the BIA’s decision “unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 

2009). Credibility determinations and determinations that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT are factual 

findings that are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. AvelarOliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 

1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 

2004). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse the 

BIA’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. 

Castaneda-Alvarez argues that the adverse credibility finding was in 

error because the internal inconsistencies within her testimony, and the 

inconsistencies among her testimony, prior statements, and documents submitted in support of her application, were immaterial to the heart of her testimony. The IJ, however, was permitted to rely on any inconsistency to determine Castaneda-Alvarez’s credibility, see Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 768, and 

the determination was supported by specific reasons based on the evidence 

presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances, substantially 

reasonable. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39. 

Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by 

“specific and cogent reasons,” the record does not compel a finding that 

Castaneda-Alvarez was credible. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 

(5th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

the lack of credible evidence precludes Castaneda-Alvarez from meeting her

burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT,

and we need not address any alternative reasons for denying her claims. See 

Case: 20-60634 Document: 00515860997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60634

3

Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir. 2020); Dayo v. Holder, 

687 F.3d 653, 658−59 (5th Cir. 2012); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 

1994).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60634 Document: 00515860997 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2021