Raymundo Alvarez-Diaz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ-DIAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-157
Agency No.
A095-773-708
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 27, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Raymundo Alvarez-Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review the agency’s
* 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 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-157
factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
In 2011, Alvarez-Diaz sought asylum (later dropped), withholding of
removal, and protection under CAT, claiming he faced torture or death should he
return to Guatemala. In 2014, the IJ made a finding of adverse credibility against
Alvarez-Diaz based on inconsistencies in his evidence and testimony.
Alternatively, the IJ denied withholding of removal and denied protection under
CAT. In 2016, Alvarez-Diaz’s case was remanded by this Court to examine any
impact of Matter of J-S-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 679, 683 (BIA 2015) on a finding of his
mental competency. The IJ found Alvarez-Diaz mentally competent in 2019.
Alvarez-Diaz did not directly dispute the IJ’s mental competency finding on this
appeal, instead incorporating PTSD and depression diagnoses into a broader
challenge towards the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Alvarez-Diaz also
challenged the denial of withholding of removal and denial of protection under
CAT.
1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. “We
review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must uphold
them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d
1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011). Alvarez-Diaz failed to challenge several important
inconsistencies relied upon by the IJ and BIA. These inconsistencies include
whether Alvarez-Diaz feared the group “FARC” or the group “FAR,” whether he

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-157
personally witnessed the killings of his stepfather and brother, whether he has
indigenous status, and whether he attempted to relocate within Guatemala up until
the time he entered the U.S. While Alvarez-Diaz claims these inconsistencies are
insignificant or minor, as the BIA noted, these issues were key to his claims.
Alvarez-Diaz also argues that other inconsistencies in key dates should be
excused based on his lack of education and his diagnoses of PTSD and
depression, but the evidence in total does not compel that the BIA’s adverse
credibility finding was incorrect.
2. Alvarez-Diaz’s arguments for withholding of removal and for
protection under CAT both rely on the credibility of his testimony. Given that
substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, we do not separately
examine these arguments.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --