NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA PAOLA SALAZAR ARROYO DE No. 20-71271 RUCAL; ZURY SAMIRA RUCAL SALAZAR, Agency Nos. A208-307-062 A208-307-063 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 10, 2022 Seattle, Washington Before: IKUTA and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,** District Judge. Ana Paola Salazar Arroyo De Rucal petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s decision finding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. her to be not credible and denying her applications—and the rider application of her daughter, Zury Samira Rucal Salazar—for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She also challenges the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s finding that she knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and grant it in part. 1. The agency found Arroyo De Rucal not credible because of conflicts among her testimony, declarations, and other documentary evidence. We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and the agency’s finding is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In a sworn statement given at the border, Arroyo De Rucal told an agent that although she had never been threatened, she fled Guatemala because she feared retribution from the gang members who killed her husband. But in a declaration and during her immigration hearing, she described an incident in which members of the gang approached her, told her they knew where she lived, and instructed her not to report her husband’s death to the police. Arroyo De Rucal’s “inability to consistently describe the underlying events that gave rise to [her] fear was an important factor that could be relied upon by the IJ in making an adverse 2 credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). Her explanation—that she was confused by the question—was not so persuasive that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled to accept it. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Additionally, the immigration judge identified inconsistencies between Arroyo De Rucal’s testimony and the supplemental declaration that she submitted on the day of her merits hearing. In the declaration, she stated that her friend told her that gang members were looking for Arroyo De Rucal “a few months” after she left Guatemala. But during her hearing, she …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals