NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTHA ELISA BARAJAS CARILLO, No. 15-73463 Petitioner, Agency No. A091-691-867 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Martha Elisa Barajas Carillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the * 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 Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition. “We review ‘denials of . . . withholding of removal[] and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)). “Credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence.” Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). “Under the substantial evidence standard, an adverse credibility finding is ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s determination that Petitioner was not credible. In a sworn statement to an immigration official at the border, Petitioner stated she had no fears or concerns about being returned to Mexico and that she would not be harmed if she returned. She stated she had “been going back and forth to Mexico to see [her] husband.” Her testimony at the withholding of removal proceedings included “[m]aterial alterations in [her] account of persecution[, which] are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner 2 testified that she and her son had been kidnapped by her husband in California and taken to Tijuana, Mexico, where they were held at her husband’s mother’s home against their will for approximately two weeks. She testified that she was beaten and sexually assaulted during that period. She testified that she escaped with her mother-in-law’s assistance and drove to the border with her son and another man her husband had kidnapped. When asked why she did not tell the officer at the border about any of this, she stated, “I was afraid. I was already – I, I had trusted somebody in TJ, sir, an agent, a federal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals