NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA SILVIA ESCOBAR OSORIO, No. 15-72565
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-275-121
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Ana Silvia Escobar Osorio, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Gonzalez-
Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies between Escobar Osorio’s declaration and the testimony
she provided at her first and second hearings as to the duration of her gang
membership, the details of her encounter with a member of a rival gang, the basis
for her belief that her cousin was murdered by a gang, and her fear of recognition
based on her tattoos. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Silva-
Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (an adverse credibility
determination may be supported by omissions that “materially altered” a
petitioner’s claim). Escobar Osorio’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Escobar Osorio did not present
corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
2 15-72565
evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support
claim). We reject as unsupported by the record Escobar Osorio’s contention that
the agency failed to adequately consider the record evidence.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Escobar Osorio’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and Escobar
Osorio does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49; Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime was not particular to the
petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
Escobar Osorio’s contentions that the agency violated her right to due
process fail. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (“To prevail on a due process challenge to
deportation proceedings, [petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”).
As stated in the court’s November 9, 2015 order, the stay of removal
remains in effect until the issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72565