United States v. 2020-07-21 | 15-70088 | MARIA OLIVA-MARTINEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ELENA OLIVA-MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70088

Agency No. A088-966-522

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted July 21, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Elena Oliva-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 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).
FILED

JUL 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-70088
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Oliva-
Martinez failed to establish materially changed circumstances affecting her
eligibility for asylum that might excuse the untimeliness of her application. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i); Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d
1080, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for substantial evidence a changed-
circumstances determination based on undisputed facts). Although the evidence
Oliva-Martinez submitted may show widespread, serious problems in El Salvador
as of 2011, including violence against women, the evidence does not show that
circumstances changed or worsened in a way that would materially affect Oliva-
Martinez’s eligibility for asylum.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on significant discrepancies between Oliva-Martinez’s written declaration
and her testimony, including the timing of the threats made against her. Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence review is a

3 15-70088
highly deferential standard that requires upholding the adverse credibility finding
so long as even one basis is supported); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043 (adverse
credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances). Oliva-
Martinez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept
explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Oliva-
Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Oliva-Martinez’s
claim for CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the
agency found not credible, and Oliva-Martinez does not point to any other
evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not
she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
We need not reach the agency’s alternative determinations that even if her
testimony was credible and her application timely, Oliva-Martinez would still have
failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
protection.
PETITION DENIED.