FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 15 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENRIQUEZ MIGUEL FLORES No. 17-71362
BARRERA,
Agency No. A095-876-862
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Enriquez Miguel Flores Barrera, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the
parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we need not recite them here.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(stating standard of review). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision
and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts
of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2019).
The agency found petitioner’s statements not credible because, although
petitioner asserted that he had been continuously threatened in Guatemala and the
United States for the past 20 years for witnessing police officers shoot his brother,
he failed to disclose information related to the shooting in his asylum application
or written statements. The IJ considered petitioner’s explanations, including that
he did not believe it was necessary to disclose these events and was afraid the
police officers would seek revenge against him, but rejected them. See Silva-
Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-87 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming the agency’s
adverse credibility determination in part because petitioner failed to disclose
“pivotal” or “crucial” events, or events that would create a more compelling fear of
2
persecution). The agency properly considered “the totality of the circumstances[]
and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Petitioner has failed to
show that the record compels us to reach a contrary conclusion. See Don v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioner’s claim
for protection under CAT. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (stating standard of
review). “An adverse credibility determination is not necessarily a death knell to
CAT protection.” Id. But because petitioner’s testimony was found not credible,
other evidence in the record must compel the conclusion that he “is more likely
than not to be tortured.” See id. at 1048-49. The BIA did not err in concluding
that petitioner is not entitled to protection under CAT because there was
insufficient objective evidence, beyond petitioner’s discredited testimony, to
demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured if returned. Petitioner
failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal or
protection under CAT. See id.1
PETITION DENIED.
1
Petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge the IJ’s determination that
his asylum application was untimely. See Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d
1140, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation omitted)).
3