NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZENAIDA MARTINEZ 

SANDOVAL; MARIA GUADALUPE 

FLORENTINO MARTINEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-923

Agency Nos.

A208-920-038

A208-920-039

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Zenaida Martinez Sandoval (“Sandoval”) and her daughter, Maria 

Guadalupe Florentino Martinez (“Martinez”), natives and citizens of Mexico, 

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order

upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of 

* 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).

FILED

JUL 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-923

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

1

 The BIA 

affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on Sandoval’s 

lack of credibility. As to the CAT claim, the BIA determined that petitioners 

had waived it. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the 

petition.

We review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions because the BIA cited 

Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and also provided its own 

analysis. See Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 3 F.4th 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Adverse credibility findings are subject to the deferential substantial evidence 

standard of review. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th 

Cir. 2022). 

The IJ and BIA found Sandoval not credible based on three material 

omissions, alterations, and inconsistencies. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 

1068 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[O]missions are probative of credibility to the extent that 

later disclosures, if credited, would bolster an earlier, and typically weaker, 

asylum application.”); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to 

support an adverse credibility finding.”); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1270 

(9th Cir. 2011) (“If the person cannot tell substantially the same story twice in 

1 Sandoval is the lead petitioner, and Martinez’s claims rest entirely on the facts 

of Sandoval’s claims. Only Sandoval testified at the merits hearing before the 

IJ.
3 22-923

substantially the same way, that suggests a likelihood that the story is false.”). 

First, Sandoval testified before the IJ that she feared returning to Mexico 

because the mayor of her town personally threatened to kill her and Martinez. 

But Sandoval failed to previously mention this crucial information throughout 

the administrative proceedings. She failed to disclose the mayor’s threats 

during her initial sworn statement given at the United States border (“sworn 

statement”). Although her declaration attached to her asylum application noted 

that the mayor was associated with the group that had threatened her, neither the 

application nor the declaration alleged that the mayor had personally threatened 

her or Martinez. Sandoval again failed to disclose any direct threats by the 

mayor in her later-filed amended declaration.

Second, in both her sworn statement and asylum application, Sandoval 

failed to mention that she had been harmed by her husband and feared him. 

Indeed, in her sworn statement, she denied ever being physically harmed or 

assaulted in Mexico. She then offered a different account in her amended 

declaration by alleging for the first time that her husband had physically abused 

her.

Third, Sandoval testified before the IJ that she remained in Tijuana for 

two months before attempting to enter the United States. But in her sworn 

statement she stated that she arrived in Tijuana on the same day she presented 

herself at the border.

Petitioners challenge only the IJ and BIA’s reliance on the omission and 
4 22-923

later disclosure of the mayor’s alleged threats, essentially arguing that 

Sandoval’s failure to initially disclose such information cannot support an 

adverse credibility determination. We disagree. The IJ and BIA could 

reasonably conclude that Sandoval initially omitted any direct threats by the 

mayor and that her later disclosure of the mayor’s direct threats embellished her 

past harms, thereby undermining her credibility. See Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th 

at 750 (acknowledging that later disclosures that embellish past harms “can 

certainly form the basis of an adverse credibility determination”). 

“Considering the totality of the circumstances,” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), the IJ and BIA’s reasons for the adverse credibility 

determination—none of which petitioners have shown to be invalid—provide 

substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determination. Absent 

credible testimony, petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal.2 See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 

1094 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Petitioners also challenge the denial of CAT relief. But the BIA 

determined that petitioners waived their CAT claim by failing to raise it before 

the BIA, and petitioners do not argue that the BIA’s waiver determination was 

improper. We therefore agree with the government that petitioners’ CAT claim 

should be denied for lack of exhaustion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Santos2 Because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive, we need not 

address the IJ and BIA’s alternative bases for denying relief.
5 22-923

Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1114 (2023) (holding that 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(d)(1) is a claim-processing rule); Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 139 

S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019) (“A claim-processing rule may be ‘mandatory’ in the

sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party ‘properly raises’ it.” 

(alterations omitted) (quoting Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005)

(per curiam))).

PETITION DENIED.