NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVARISTO ESCOBAR PERALTA, No. 19-70255
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-178-398
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Evaristo Escobar Peralta, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
*
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).
and we deny the petition.
We review factual findings under the “substantial evidence” standard. Iman
v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Thus, the agency’s factual findings are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). As the BIA only partially relied on the IJ’s
reasoning in denying Peralta’s claims, we review only “the grounds relied upon by”
the BIA. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted).1
Peralta argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding. “[I]n assessing an adverse credibility finding . . . we must look to the totality
of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (cleaned up).
Here, the BIA considered several inconsistencies in the record, Peralta’s
unemotional demeanor, and his unresponsive answers before the IJ. Three of the
inconsistencies are most critical. First, although Peralta later claimed fear of
returning to Mexico, he did not do so in his interviews with immigration officials in
April and June 2012, shortly after entering the United States. Second, Peralta
mentioned only one kidnapping on his Form I-589 asylum application but later
1
The government highlights that Peralta testified he was not part of a particular
social group as grounds for denying withholding of removal, but the BIA did not
“expressly” rely on this point. Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020).
2
testified that he was kidnapped twice. Finally, Peralta testified at his hearing in
materially greater detail about the alleged beatings and mistreatment that he suffered
when kidnapped than he had described in his application. The IJ gave Peralta
opportunities to explain these inconsistencies, but Peralta provided no meaningful
justifications that resolved his discrepancies. See Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148,
1154 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
adverse credibility finding. With Peralta’s discredited testimony removed from
consideration, there is no objective evidence establishing a clear probability that he
would be persecuted upon returning to Mexico. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1048 (9th Cir. 2010).
The remaining evidence of record does not show that Peralta is more likely
than not to be tortured if removed to Mexico. See id. at 1048–49. Thus, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection, including its
determination that Peralta failed to show that he could not safely relocate within
Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3