Walter Alfredo Grande v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER ALFREDO GRANDE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70257
Agency No. A200-242-250
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 27, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Walter Alfredo Grande (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),
affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ” and, collectively with the BIA,
“the Agency”) denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection
* 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).
FILED
AUG 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We review factual findings,
including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Similarly, the Agency’s “findings
underlying its determination that an applicant is not eligible for relief under the
CAT are reviewed for substantial evidence.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770
(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Under the substantial evidence standard, we “uphold[] the [Agency’s]
determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.”
Id. (quoting Arteaga, 511 F.3d at 944). We deny the petition.
1. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner was not credible and,
therefore, could not meet his burden of establishing his eligibility for withholding
of removal. In so concluding, the BIA “highlight[ed] specific and cogent reasons
to support [the IJ’s] adverse credibility finding.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1055 (9th Cir. 2010). Specifically, the BIA noted that Petitioner did not testify
consistently about which year he was shot at by gang members, an incident that
also resulted in the death of his cousin, or about the order in which two of his
uncles were attacked and/or killed. Those incidents formed the basis for
Petitioner’s fear of future persecution, and we have held that a petitioner’s
“inability to consistently describe the underlying events that gave rise to his fear
[is] an important factor that [can] be relied upon by the IJ in making an adverse

-- 2 of 3 --

3
credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir.
2010). In light of the inconsistencies noted by the BIA, we cannot say that the
record compels the conclusion that Petitioner testified credibly, and the Agency’s
adverse credibility determination is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
See Cole, 659 F.3d at 770. Further, we agree with the Agency that, without
credible testimony, Petitioner cannot “show a ‘clear probability’ of future
persecution,” and is therefore not eligible for withholding of removal. Garcia, 749
F.3d at 791 (quoting Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003)).
2. The BIA also held that Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing
eligibility for CAT protection. The BIA determined that, after putting aside
Petitioner’s own testimony—which, as discussed above, the Agency did not err by
discrediting—Petitioner had not offered sufficient evidence to show it is “more
likely than not that [he] would be tortured if removed to [El Salvador].” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2). We cannot say the record compels a contrary conclusion. See
Cole, 659 F.3d at 770.1 We accordingly must uphold the BIA’s decision to deny
CAT protection.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Petitioner did not raise to the BIA the argument he now makes that he
bears scars from a previous attack that will be impossible to hide and that could
prompt a further attack. We therefore cannot consider it. See Singh v. Whitaker,
914 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir. 2019).

-- 3 of 3 --