NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS LUIS ALVEREZ VASQUEZ, No. 15-73336
Santos Luis Alvarez Vasquez,
Agency No. A088-447-874
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SILVER,*** District
Judge.
Santos Luis Alverez Vasquez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
*
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).
***
The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s denial of withholding
of removal and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208,
1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petitions.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal.
In reviewing Alverez Vasquez’s petition, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) adverse credibility finding against Alverez Vasquez and denied withholding
of removal.1 An adverse credibility finding is an adequate ground to deny a claim
for withholding of removal. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892–93 (9th Cir.
2020); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
An adverse credibility determination must be “based on the totality of the
circumstances and all relevant factors, not a single factor.” Alam v. Garland, 11
F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (simplified). The BIA determined that
the IJ considered the relevant statutory factors in reaching its decision. The BIA
specifically highlighted the IJ’s consideration of (1) discrepancies within Alverez
Vasquez’s testimony and (2) discrepancies between Alverez Vasquez’s testimony
and other evidence in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (listing the
1
The BIA also found that Alverez Vasquez waived any challenge to the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
adverse credibility decision, we do not address the waiver issue.
2
“internal consistency” of statements and “consistency of such statements with other
evidence of record” as factors to consider). For example, Alverez Vasquez provided
contradictory testimony with respect to the identity of the other bus driver on the
date of the gang attack. As a result, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial
of withholding of removal.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. The
BIA found that Alverez Vasquez failed to establish that it was “more likely than not”
that he would be tortured “with the consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran
government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Because Alverez
Vasquez’s testimony was discredited, the BIA did not consider his arguments
surrounding his 2004 gang attack. Instead, the BIA looked to his remaining country
conditions evidence and concluded that such evidence was insufficient to establish
eligibility for CAT relief. While the country conditions reports show that torture
occurs in Honduras, “they do not compel the conclusion that [the petitioner] would
be tortured if returned.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2006).
Nor do the reports show that the Honduran government would consent or acquiesce
to any torture of Alverez Vasquez. For example, while the 2013 State Department
report acknowledges “serious impediments to the protection of human rights” the
report makes clear that the Honduran government has taken “steps to prosecute and
punish officials who committed abuses.” Thus, the country conditions evidence fails
3
to compel a finding that it is “more likely than not” that Alverez Vasquez would be
tortured “with the consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran government.
DENIED.
4
Santos Alverez Vasquez v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion