United States v. 2020-06-09 | 16-73841 | DULCE GUTIERREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DULCE MARIA GUTIERREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73841

Agency No. A200-074-592

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 9, 2020
**

Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Dulce Maria Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

*
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

JUN 9 2020

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

2 16-73841
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by 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 adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Gutierrez’s testimony and declaration as to the
incident of harm that she allegedly suffered in Mexico. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the circumstances).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Gutierrez’s
corroborative evidence did not otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate petitioner’s testimony or independently
support claim). Gutierrez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, Gutierrez’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 Gutierrez’s CAT
claim because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and
Gutierrez does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by, or with the
consent or acquiescence of, the government if returned to Mexico. See Almaghzar

3 16-73841
v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.