N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GLADYS ORELLANA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 16-73028 17-70666 Age n c y No. A096-044-118
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 Oc tobe r 23, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Gla dy s Ore lla

na , a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the d e c ision of theB o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) (1) a ffirm ing the de nia l of he r a pplic ations for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the 

# F IL ED
NOV 22 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ) by an Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” ), and (2) de ny ing the m otion to re ope n. W e de ny the pe titions for re vie w. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a ffirm anc e of the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

finding. 1 The B IA ide ntifie d five inc onsiste nc ie s tha t supporte d the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

finding. As long a s one of the five c ite d re a sons is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , we are bound to a c c e pt the a dve rse c re dibility finding, a

nd we
ne e d not a ddre ss a ll of the inc onsiste nc ie s ide ntifie d by the B IA. Se e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , the B IA found no c le ar e rror in the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t Ore lla na ’ s te stim ony

wa s inc onsiste nt with re ga rd to whe the r he r da

u g hte r ha d a

boy frie n d. Ore lla

na a sse rts the re is no inc onsiste nc y
and, e ve n if the re we re , it wa s trivia l. W e disa gre e . Ore lla na c la im e d in he r de c la

ra tion tha t he r da ughte r ha d

a boy frie n d a

nd that he r da ughte r wa s m

urde re d by B a lm ore s, a

m e m be r of the M ara s Sa lvatruc ha s (“ M S” ) gang, be c a

use he r da

u ghte r re fuse d to da

te him . Ore l la

na ’ s c la im wa s tha

t , be c a use she told thepolic e who ha d kille d he r da ughte r, she fe are d re ta lia

tion from

1 Ore lla na a sse rts in he r ope ning brie f that the IJ viola te d he r due proc e ss rights be c a

use the IJ fa ile d to providehe r with tim e to obta in c orroborative e vide nc e . Howe ve r, Ore lla n a fa ile d to e xha

ust this issue be fore the B IA. R athe r tha n a sking theB IA to re m and he r c a se unde r Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079 (9th C ir. 2011), shec la im e d tha t she “ fully

c orroborate d

he r c la im with a ple thora of supporting docum e nts.” W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to a ddre ss this issue
. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004). 2the g ang. Any inc onsiste nc y

re ga rding he r da

ughte r’ s de ath— an e ve nt tha t wa s the founda

tion for he r fe a

r of pe rse c ution—

w ould not betrivia l. Se e S hre stha v
. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010). Thus, the de ta ils re l ating to whe the r he r da ughte r ha d a

boy frie nd na

m e d Jonste r or Jone s or whe the r he r da ughte r wa s dating B a lm ore s we re a

signific ant pa

rt of he r c la im

of a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion. W

he n que stione d a

bout this subje c t , Ore lla

n a c ha nge d he r te stim ony m ultipletim e s. The IJ ga

ve full we ight to Ore lla

n a ’ s m e n ta l he a l th
re port in c onside ring he r e xpla n ation of post-tra

um atic stre ss disorde r. Howe ve r, the IJ c onc lude d tha

t Ore lla n a ’ s ina bility to providec onsiste nt a

nswe rs wa s not
c a use d by he r m e nta l-he a lth c ondition. Nothing pre se n te d by Ore lla na c om pe ls a
c ontra ry c onc lusion. The IJ wa s a ble to obse rve Ore lla

na in pe rson, a

nd the re is substa ntia l e vide nc e to support her de c ision. Se e Shre stha v
. Holde r , 590 F.3d a t 1041-42. Ac c ordingly , Ore lla na fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum
. S

e e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. B e c a

use Ore lla

na fa ile d to sa

tisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd of proof re quire d to
e sta blish e l igibility

for a s y lum , she ne c e ssa

rily ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

t e e ligibility for withholding of rem ova l. Id. 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ore lla na fa ile d to
e sta blish prote c tion unde r C AT. Although “ [a ] n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation
3is not ne c e ssa rily a de ath kne ll to C AT prote c tion,” Shre s tha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048, Ore lla na ’ s c la im s of future torture are ba se d on he r inc re dible te stim ony tha t she will be torture d by

the M S gang for he r “ e fforts to provide he lpful inform ation to the p olic e .” Ore lla

na a sse rts tha

t the c ountry

re ports a lone de m onstra

te he r e ligibility for C AT re lie f; howe ve r, a s the IJ note d, she ha s fa ile d to ide n tify any c onne c tion be twe e n the ga ngs in El Sa lva dor a

nd he rse lf tha

t m ight support a like lihood of future torture . 4. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing the m otion to re ope n. The de c la ra tions Ore lla

na subm i tte d to support the

m otion to re o pe n we re re a sona bly
ava ila ble to pre se nt to theIJ in theproc e e dings be low. Ore lla na doe s not c ha lle nge on a ppe a l the B IA’ s finding tha t he r e vide nc e wa s pre viously ava ila ble ; rathe r, she
a sse rts ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. This issue ha s not be e n

e xha uste d, a nd
we la c k jurisdic t ion to a ddre ss it. 2 Se e Barron , 358 F.3d a t 677–78. PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 B e c a use the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion, we ne e d not re a c h the B IA’ s a lte rnative finding for de ny i ng the m otion to re o pe n. 4