NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIBEL OROZCO BAEZ; HENRRY No. 18-70124 ANTONIO GONZALEZ OROZCO; HECTOR FABIAN GONZALEZ Agency Nos. A208-596-370 OROZCO, A208-596-371 A208-596-372 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 10, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: COLE,*** GOULD, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Maribel Orozco Baez (“Orozco”), a native and citizen of Mexico, and 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 R. Guy Cole, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. sons petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) adverse credibility finding and denial of their post-REAL ID Act applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. The IJ found Orozco not credible because her testimony was inconsistent with her husband’s with respect to events central to her claims for relief, particularly “critical details of [her husband’s] alleged beatings by criminals, including whether and where the beatings took place and whether [Orozco] witnessed [them].” For example, the IJ identified discrepancies in testimony regarding a beating that allegedly occurred in April 2015, with Orozco testifying that she witnessed the beating happen near the carport of her home and her husband testifying that the beating did not happen at the property. The IJ also found Orozco’s husband’s testimony “vague and evasive,” “nonresponsive,” “internally inconsistent,” “lack[ing] detail,” and punctuated with several “long pauses.” See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying REAL ID Act, and concluding record supported the agency’s credibility determination based on petitioner’s evasive testimony and non-responsive demeanor). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which the BIA affirmed. In finding Orozco not credible, the IJ offered “specific cogent” reasons and based his determination on the “totality of circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 2 (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency of [the applicant’s] statements with other evidence of record . . . .”); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Moreover, Orozco did not present any corroborating evidence that would independently satisfy her evidentiary burden or rehabilitate her credibility. Copies of her birth certificate, passport, voting credentials, marriage certificate, and documentation of her husband’s service in the Mexican military only substantiate undisputed facts. Accordingly, Orozco failed to establish that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to disagree with the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals