Ausra Savickiene v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 18-72166
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUSRA SAVICKIENE, No. 18-72166

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-720-578

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 3, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: LEE, KOH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Ausra Savickiene (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Lithuania, petitions

for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying

Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel ordered this case submitted on the briefs without oral argument. See Dkt. 55; Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) due to an adverse credibility

determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

“Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration

judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d

857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). “We review for substantial evidence factual findings

underlying the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum,

withholding of removal, or CAT relief” and reverse only if the “evidence . . .

compels the conclusion that these findings . . . are erroneous.” Plancarte Sauceda

v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The substantial evidence standard applies to the agency’s

credibility determinations. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017).

“[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse

credibility determination.” Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1. Petitioner argues the agency erred in denying all of Petitioner’s claims for

relief by finding Petitioner’s testimony not credible. However, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on “inconsistencies

between the [Petitioner’s] testimony and the evidentiary record.” For example,

Petitioner testified at least four times that Petitioner never reported her Lithuanian

2 ex-husband’s abuse to the police. The record, however, includes a 2014 report

from the local Lithuanian police headquarters prepared in response to Petitioner’s

request, which Petitioner herself translated and attached to her asylum application.

The report describes two incidents of abuse Petitioner reported to the police in

2000 and 2001. Even after being confronted with the police report, Petitioner

testified that she reported her ex-husband’s abuse once. The inconsistencies within

Petitioner’s own testimony and contradictions between Petitioner’s testimony and

the evidentiary record constitute substantial evidence supporting the agency’s

adverse credibility determination, and Petitioner points to no evidence compelling

us to conclude otherwise. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000)

(finding substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility finding

“based on several contradictions between the documentary evidence she submitted

and her testimony . . . as well as conflicting testimony she provided”).1 “Without

credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, [Petitioner] cannot show

that [s]he has a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ based on a protected ground . . .

[and] we deny [the petitioner for review with respect to [Petitioner’s] claim for

1 Petitioner’s argument minimizing these inconsistencies because they do not “go to the heart” of Petitioner’s claim erroneously relies on outdated pre-REAL ID Act cases. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The REAL ID Act implemented an important substantive change . . . Inconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).

3 asylum and . . . withholding of removal.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927

(9th Cir. 2020).

2. Separately, Petitioner argues that the agency erred in denying her claim

for CAT relief, but substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision. Petitioner

“must show that it is more likely than not” that she would be tortured by or with

the acquiescence of the government if removed to Lithuania and that she faces “a

particularized threat of torture.” Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.

2008) (emphasis in original) (citation modified). Petitioner’s brief cites no

evidence at all and the record before the agency included only the same discredited

testimony and a general human rights report finding that “domestic violence [is]

widespread” in Lithuania. Neither the testimony nor the general reports compel a

finding that Petitioner is eligible for CAT protection. See Almaghzar v. Gonzalez,

457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying petition where CAT protection

claim was based on “discredited testimony and general reports indicating that

torture occurs in Yemen” because general reports “do not compel the conclusion

that [Petitioner] would be tortured if returned”); Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,

740-41 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by, Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th

1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding “substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT

relief” where Petitioner relied “on the same testimony found to be not credible”

and a “Country Report” documenting “religious persecution . . . in China,” because

4 a general report “is insufficient to compel the conclusion that Petitioner would be

tortured if returned”) (emphasis in original).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. See Dkt. 1.