NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HILDA MORALES-MORALES, AKA No. 21-70686 Petronila Morales-Morales, Agency No. A209-294-875 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 7, 2022** Phoenix, Arizona Before: GRABER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Hilda Morales-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for * 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s order of removal and rejection of her claims of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In assessing an adverse credibility finding, the court must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Morales-Morales lacked credibility. First, Morales-Morales used her sister’s name and birthdate on her application for relief and at four immigration court hearings, only correcting the record two weeks before her merits hearing. The agency did not err in relying on this inconsistency because an applicant’s “deliberate deception . . . casts doubt on [her] credibility and the rest of [her] story.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Morales-Morales attempted to explain the inconsistency by 2 stating that she wished to start “anew” and to avoid paying a debt that she owed the human smugglers who arranged her entry. The immigration judge reasonably rejected those explanations because it is not clear how either goal would be served by Morales-Morales’s claiming to be her sister, who is similarly in the United States without status. These explanations are not so convincing that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to accept them. Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 958– 59, 961 (9th Cir. 2021). Second, Morales-Morales falsely claimed in her application not to know that it was her uncle who attempted to kill her father in Guatemala. She attempted to explain the inconsistency by testifying that she “didn’t want to get [her] uncle in trouble.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals