NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIELA BEATRIZ ZALDANA No. 18-73091 PORTILLO, Agency No. A206-478-024 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 2, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: SILER,*** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Gabriela Beatriz Zaldana Portillo (“Portillo”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. When the BIA’s decision “relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning,” as it does here, “we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012)). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013), and therefore “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion,” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Applying that “extremely deferential standard of review,” Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007), we conclude that the record does not compel us to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and the immigration judge (“IJ”). We therefore must uphold the adverse credibility finding. 1. The inconsistency between Portillo’s initial border interview, in which she expressed no fear of returning to El Salvador, and her application, in which she stated that she was in fear of her life because of her abusive ex-boyfriend, “go[es] to the heart of [her] asylum claim.” See Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005). Such an inconsistency “is of great weight.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). And, despite the petitioner’s assertion to the 2 contrary, it is clear the agency did not base its credibility decision solely on this single inconsistency but in light of other discrepancies. Further, the IJ was not required to accept Portillo’s explanation that she mentioned an economic incentive for traveling to the United States at the border upon the advice that doing so would result in her being released from detention sooner. See Don, 476 F.3d at 744 (explaining that an IJ need not “interpret the evidence in the manner advocated by” the applicant). Instead, our precedent requires only that an IJ consider a proffered explanation for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals