UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1899 CINDIA ASTRID SALAZAR DE TOLEDO, a/k/a Cindy Astrid Lima-Salazar; K.D.S.L., a minor child; M.Y.S.L., a minor child, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 30, 2020 Decided: April 14, 2020 Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maureen A. Sweeney, Gabriela Q. Kahrl, MARYLAND CAREY LAW IMMIGRATION CLINIC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Andrea N. Gevas, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cindia Astrid Salazar de Toledo, and her two minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Salazar de Toledo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. 1 We deny the petition for review. “Because the Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s opinion in full, the factual findings and reasoning contained in both decisions are subject to judicial review.” Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 252 (4th Cir. 2019) (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the agency’s decision unless it is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011). Our review of the agency’s findings is narrow and deferential. Factual findings and an adverse credibility finding are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Id. The agency must provide specific, cogent reasons for finding the applicant incredible. Id. “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]dverse credibility determinations are generally fatal to an asylum claim” unless the applicant can prove past persecution through independent evidence. Qing Hua Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 343, 354 (4th Cir. 2013). 1 Salazar de Toledo’s two children born in El Salvador are derivative asylum applicants. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2018). 2 We conclude that the agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. Salazar de Toledo’s failure to be completely forthcoming about her criminal record in El Salvador, inconsistencies concerning the last time she saw or spoke to her father, a drug dealer, how she acquired her birth certificate, and discrepancies between her testimony and her asylum application and written affidavit concerning key events that led her to leave El Salvador provide ample support for the adverse credibility finding. We find no error in the IJ’s consideration of Salazar de Toledo’s asserted reasons and excuses for the discrepancies and inconsistencies. “[W]here the record plausibly could support two results: the one the IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals