N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TERESA M AR TINEZ TOR R ES, AKA Te re sa Isolina M a rtine z C hava

rria , AKA Te re sa Isolina M a rtine z Torre s, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71175 Age n c y No. A206-846-134
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 M ay

4, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s , a nd FR IEDM AN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAY11 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble Pa ul L. Frie dm an, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C olum

bia , sitting by

de signa t ion.Pe titione r Te re sa M artine z Torre s, a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c i sion dism issing he r a

p p e a l from

an Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) orde r de ny ing he r a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion pursua

nt to the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ) an d

we de ny the pe tition. W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s le ga l de te rm inations de novo a nd fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Singh v . Holde r , 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th C ir. 2011). An IJ’ s c re dibility

de te rm inations a

re e n title d to “ substa

ntia l de fe re nc e ” be c a

use

“ IJs ‘ are in the be s t position to a sse ss de m e anor a nd othe r c re dibility

c ue s tha t we
c annot re a dily a c c e ss on re vie w.’ ” Oshodi v . Holde r , 729 F.3d 883, 892 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ) (quoting Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010)). W e uphold thea ge nc y ’ s de c ision “ if the de c ision is supporte d by re a sona ble , substa ntia l, a n d proba tive e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .” Tampubolon v . Holde r , 610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks a nd c ita tion omitte d). W e re ve rse only if “ the e vide n c e in the re c ord
c om pe ls a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r to c onc lude that the B IA’ s de c ision is inc o rre c t.” Id. (a l te ra tion a

nd c ita tion omitte d)

21. The IJ m ust provide“ spe c ific and c oge nt re a sons supporting a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion,” and those re a sons “ m ust . . . ta ke into a c c ount the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, a nd should re c ogniz e tha

t the norm a l lim its of hum an unde rsta

nding a nd m e m ory

m ay m ake som e inc onsiste nc ie s or la c k of
re c a ll pre se nt in a

ny witne ss’ s c a se .” Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Shre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1042, 1044–45) (a

l te ra tions in origina

l).

“ [T] o support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination, a

n inc onsiste nc y

m u st not be trivia l a nd m ust ha ve som e be aring on the

pe titione r’ s ve ra c ity .” Id. He re , the IJ ide ntifie d four spe c ific and c oge nt re a sons to support the
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion, with which the B IA a gre e d : (1) pe titione r inc o nsiste ntly

re c ounte d the num

be r of inc ide nts of phy sic a l ha rm ; (2) pe titione r provide d inc onsiste n t inform a tion re ga rding the date s she wa s ha rm e d; (3) pe titione r inc onsiste ntly

te stifie d a

bout thenum

b e r of tim e s she re porte d ga ng thre a ts or viole nc e to the polic e ; (4) pe titione r te stifie d inc onsiste ntly c onc e rning the e xiste nc e and loc a tion of c o rroborat ing m e dic a l e vide n c e . The s e inc o nsiste nc i e s a

re not trivial, a

nd we c onc lude the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . 2. Pe titione r argue s the a ge nc y e rre d by de ny ing he r a

pplic a tions for
a sy lum and withholding. The B IA rule d tha

t “ [b] e c a use [pe t itione r’ s ] a c c ount wa s
3not c re dible , [she ] did not m e e t he r burde n of proof to e sta

b lish a sy lum e ligibility ,”
and it “ n e c e ssa

rily follow[e d] tha

t [she ] a lso did not me e t he r burde n of proof to
e sta blish e l igibility

for withholding of rem ova l.” In the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , we c o nc l ude the re m a ining e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the
c onc lusion tha

t the B IA’ s de c ision wa s ina de quate ly supporte d. Se e Shre

stha , 590 F.3d at 1048–49. 3. To e s ta

blish e ligibility

for C AT re lie f, pe t itione r m ust “prove tha

t it is
m ore like ly

tha n not tha t [she ] would be torture d if [she ] we re re m ove d to the propose d c ountry , ” and tha

t the torture would be e ffe c te d by or with the
a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l. Barajas-Rome r o v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th C ir. 2017). B e c a

use the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , we m ay

only re ve rse the B IA’ s de nia l of C A T re lie f if the
re m a ining re c ord e vide nc e c om pe l s the c onc lusion tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not pe titione r will be t orture d if she is re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d
a t 1048–49. Here , the re m a ining e v ide n c e is insuffic ie nt to m e e t this sta nda rd. Se e De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4