MEMORANDUM **
Maria Cristina Chocoyo-Concua,
1
a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appealss (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judges (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIAs legal conclusions de novo and its “factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIAs affirmance of the IJs adverse credibility finding. The BIA based its decision on relevant factors, including inconsistencies in Chocoyo-Concuas testimony, inconsistencies between her testimony and documentary evidence, and her unresponsiveness to the IJs questions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Chocoyo-Concua argues that any inconsistencies in her statements are trivial and cannot support an adverse credibility determination. We disagree. The BIA cited multiple inconsistencies concerning the facts underlying her requests for relief. Because such inconsistencies reasonably bear on Chocoyo-Concuas veracity, the BIA did not err in relying on them to affirm the IJs credibility finding. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs determination that she failed to rehabilitate her claim with sufficient corroborating evidence. Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding that without credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, Chocoyo-Concua failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs decision regarding Chocoyo-Concuas CAT claim. A petitioner seeking protection under the CAT must show that it is “more likely than not” she will be tortured upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Chocoyo-Concua, however, cites only “generalized evidence of violence and crime in [Guatemala],” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010), and fails to show that she faces a “particularized threat of torture,” Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The BIA, therefore, did not err in affirming the IJs denial of relief under the CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Chocoyo-Concuas three children, who are also citizens of Guatemala, are derivative beneficiaries of her application for asylum and related relief.