Griselda Selena Acabal-Tzun v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRISELDA SELENA ACABAL-TZUN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73004
Agency No. A202-060-507
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Griselda Selena Acabal-Tzun, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-73004
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Acabal-Tzun’s inconsistent and implausible testimony as to the details of
an inter-village fight, and an omission from her testimony about the women of her
village being stripped naked. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Acabal-Tzun’s explanations do
not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Acabal-Tzun’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Acabal-Tzun’s
CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not she
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
We reject as unsupported by the record Acabal-Tzun’s contentions that the
IJ erred in her analysis of Acabal-Tzun’s credibility and CAT claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-73004
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --