Jelen Yarleny Monte De Oca Anduray v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JELEN YARLENY MONTE DE OCA
ANDURAY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73111
Agency No. A202-097-869
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District
Judge.
Jelen Yarleny Monte de Oca Anduray petitions for review of a decision of the
* 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).
*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an order of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
and must accept them unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” Zhi v. Holder, 751
F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
That determination can be based on “the inherent plausibility” of the applicant’s
account, “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements,”
and “the internal consistency of each such statement.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).
Anduray inconsistently testified about the dates of her alleged harassment by
“El Chucho” and where she was going when it occurred. She could not explain how
El Chucho knew her phone number when she did not get a cell phone until after the
last time she was harassed by him and moved, nor why El Chucho ceased contact
after she moved, even though she continued to attend the same school. Anduray also
failed to list her Guatemalan work history or her aunt’s address on her applications.
Although Anduray remained in contact with her mother in Guatemala, she failed to
submit any corroborating evidence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. Even assuming Anduray is credible, the record does not compel the
conclusion that her application should be granted. Harassment does not generally
amount to “persecution,” see, e.g., Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th
Cir. 2005); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009), Anduray’s female
relatives continue to live in Guatemala unharmed, and Anduray only generally
alleges that the police would not have intervened had she reported, see Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). She has thus not shown past
persecution, a reasonable probability of future persecution, past torture, a likelihood
of future torture, or government acquiescence.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --