Norma Leticia Sabino Hernandez v. Merrick B. Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 17 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA LETICIA SABINO No. 20-72562
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A206-269-157
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Norma Leticia Sabino Hernandez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s
(IJ’s) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
1. First, we conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. The IJ observed that there was a nontrivial inconsistency
between one of Sabino Hernandez’s declarations and her testimony, that aspects of
her factual account were implausible, and that she admitted she had presented false
documents in at least some of her previous attempts to enter the United States.
These considerations were proper under the REAL ID Act and constitute “specific
and cogent” reasons supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2010); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (allowing consideration of, among other things, the “inherent
plausibility” of the petitioner’s account and the consistency between the
petitioner’s written and oral statements); Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960–61 (9th
Cir. 2021) (observing that the petitioner’s submission of false information in a visa
application supported the BIA’s adverse credibility determination).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Sabino Hernandez’s
asylum and withholding claims because she failed to show the Mexican
government is unable or unwilling to protect her from her assailants. Though she
argues the police were “not very helpful” after she was kidnapped and shot, the
2
record shows the police arrived 30 minutes after being called, took Sabino
Hernandez to the police station to be treated by Red Cross paramedics, took her to
a hospital, and had her sign documents at the prosecutor’s office after she was
released from the hospital. Sabino Hernandez does not know whether the police
continued investigating the shooting because she left for the United States a few
days after being released from the hospital and did not provide the police with her
contact information. Substantial evidence therefore supports the IJ’s ruling that
Sabino Hernandez failed to show Mexican authorities would be unwilling or
unable to protect her from her assailants. See, e.g., Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871,
878 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that “where the asylum applicant failed to provide the
police with sufficiently specific information to permit an investigation or an
arrest,” the police’s inability to solve a crime does not show government inability
or unwillingness to control persecutors).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Sabino
Hernandez’s CAT claim. To obtain CAT relief, Sabino Hernandez needed to
establish a likelihood of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
Mexican government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.18(a)(1). As discussed,
the police response to the shooting does not support Sabino Hernandez’s argument
that the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to her assailants torturing
3
her. Sabino Hernandez submitted a country conditions report stating that armed
groups have on occasion targeted migrants in Mexico, but as the IJ observed, the
report also notes efforts by the Mexican government to combat this problem.
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Sabino Hernandez failed to meet
her burden to obtain CAT relief.
The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. No. 1) is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4