SELVIN GABRIEL VILLEGAS- CASTRO, AKA Selvin Castro Villegas, AKA Selvin… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELVIN GABRIEL VILLEGAS-
CASTRO, AKA Selvin Castro Villegas,
AKA Selvin Castrovillegas, AKA Selvin
Villegas,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71859
Agency No. A205-716-699
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Selvin Gabriel Villegas-Castro argues in his petition for review that the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination and resulting denial of his applications for
withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) relief are not supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, Alam v.
Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), we are not compelled to
conclude that Petitioner was credible, see Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d
1173, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2021). There was substantial evidence on the record taken
as a whole to support the adverse credibility determination. See id. Petitioner does
not attempt to explain the inconsistencies the BIA identified and instead attacks
them as not going to the heart of his claim. The REAL ID Act governs this case
and in such cases inconsistencies need not go to the heart of the claim to form the
basis for an adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Moreover, many of the inconsistencies do go to the heart of his claim. Many of
them concerned his past persecution—for example, the nature and severity of the
only physical attack he claimed, where the perpetrators lived, and whether his
children in Honduras are still being pursued by Mara 18. In the absence of credible
2

-- 2 of 3 --

testimony, substantial evidence substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion
that Petitioner has not carried his burden of establishing that he is entitled to
withholding of removal.
Petitioner also argues that the BIA’s determination that he is not eligible for
CAT relief is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Petitioner argues
that the treatment he endured is sufficient to constitute torture. But, even setting
aside the fact that his testimony was properly found to be not credible, the BIA
explained that Petitioner had not shown that any torture would be done by or with
the acquiescence of public officials. At best, Petitioner made conclusory
allegations that the police would not help. This is not sufficient to compel a
contrary conclusion. See Villegas Sanchez, 990 F.3d at 1178.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --