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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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