NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FATIMA CHINCHILLA-DUARTE, AKA No. 14-74032 Evelyn Yessenia Santos-Ortiz, Agency No. A206-408-881 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2023**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Fatima Chinchilla-Duarte, also known as Evelyn Yessenia Santos-Ortiz, is a

native and citizen of Guatemala. She petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying her application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Chinchilla-Duarte

failed to establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. The BIA found that

Chinchilla-Duarte did not establish that she has a well-founded fear of persecution

on account of a protected ground because her asserted particular social group—

“female victims of gang violence”—is not cognizable. See Villegas Sanchez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2021) (“‘[T]he social group must exist

independently of the fact of persecution’ because ‘the persecutors’ perception is

not itself enough to make a group socially distinct.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 236 n.11, 242 (BIA 2014)). Chinchilla-Duarte does not

challenge this determination, and the issue is thus waived. She therefore has not

shown that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that the

BIA erred in denying withholding for removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Chinchilla-Duarte

failed to establish her entitlement to CAT protections. The agency found that

Chinchilla-Duarte did not show that it was more likely than not that she would be

tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government.

Chinchilla-Duarte reports an instance in which she was assaulted by a police

officer; however, her testimony was deemed not to be credible based on several

omissions, inconsistencies, and contradictions in her testimony. Substantial

2 evidence supports the IJ’s determination, which cited material discrepancies in the

record about Chinchilla-Duarte’s background and claims. See Tamang v. Holder,

598 F.3d 1083, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2010). Chinchilla-Duarte did not report the

assault, and so she was unable to corroborate her testimony. She also does not

claim that she was otherwise fearful of being tortured with the consent or

acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. She thus has not provided an

argument compelling a conclusion contrary to the agency’s denial of CAT

protections.

DENIED.

3