Juliana Guzman Hernandez; Javier Guzman Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIANA GUZMAN HERNANDEZ;
JAVIER GUZMAN HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72128
Agency Nos. A213-084-373
A213-084-359
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 9, 2021**
Portland, Oregon
Before: WARDLAW, TALLMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Siblings Juliana and Javier Guzman Hernandez (“Petitioners”), natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their
* 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 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not clearly
err in making an adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA’s decision rested on at least two “specific
and cogent reasons” supporting its determination that Petitioners were not credible.
Id. at 1044. First, Juliana testified inconsistently regarding the alleged threat that
led her family to flee Mexico for the United States. For example, at her second
credible fear interview, Juliana stated under oath that letters threatening her entire
family were left outside of their home on two occasions the week following her
father’s death. But at the merits hearing before the IJ, Juliana testified that Javier
informed their family that they needed to leave because he had received a threat.
Juliana testified that Javier did not specify what type of threat he had received.
Second, Juliana’s internally inconsistent statements also contradicted
Javier’s testimony before the IJ. Javier testified that two armed, masked men
stopped him and threatened that if he “didn’t leave . . . , the same thing that
happened to [his] father was going to happen to [him].” He repeatedly testified
that he never shared this information with Juliana. Javier’s testimony directly
contradicts Juliana’s statements that two letters were left outside of the family’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
home and that Javier informed the family that he had been threatened. Considering
these discrepancies under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not
compel a contrary result. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B); Ling
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2014).
In the absence of credible testimony, the remaining record evidence is
insufficient to compel the conclusion that Petitioners are eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Manes v. Sessions, 875
F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioners’ CAT claims, which are largely
premised on the same non-credible testimony, also fail. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder,
754 F.3d 733, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --