Delgado Trejo v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 16, 2023
• Docket: 22-1904
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONY E. DELGADO TREJO, No. 22-1904 Agency No. Petitioner, A094-331-592 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 14, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Dony Delgado Trejo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of

a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from

an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum,

* 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination based on inconsistencies in Delgado’s testimony and written

application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ provided “specific and

cogent” reasons for finding Delgado not credible, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1042–43 (9th Cir. 2010), including her repeated references to her “husband” and her

later admission that she was not lawfully married, inconsistent testimony about her

interactions with Honduran police, and insufficient detail regarding past threats. The

record does not compel a contrary conclusion on the issue of credibility. See Garcia

v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (this Court “will only overturn the IJ’s

conclusion when the evidence compels a contrary result” (cleaned up)).

2. Given the adverse credibility determination, Delgado has not

established eligibility for asylum or withholding. The evidence other than her

testimony does not compel a finding in her favor; her children’s testimony conflicted

with hers, and although country reports demonstrate generalized violence, they do

not compel a finding that Delgado herself is at risk of future persecution. See

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (“Absent [] discredited testimony, there is no objective

evidence” establishing “persecution based on a protected ground.”).

3. “An adverse credibility determination does not, by itself, necessarily

2 22-1904 defeat a CAT claim,” Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791 (citation omitted), “[b]ut when the

petitioner’s testimony is found not credible, to reverse the BIA’s decision denying

CAT protection, we would have to find that the reports alone compelled the

conclusion that the petitioner is more likely than not to be tortured,” Shrestha, 590

F.3d at 1048–49 (cleaned up). Delgado did not show previous torture, and the

country reports do not compel a finding that Delgado, specifically, is at risk of

torture. And, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if

credible, Delgado failed to establish that it is “more likely than not” that she would

be tortured if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-1904