NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAIDY IVETH PENSAMIENTO- No. 19-72331 DUARTE; NEISY JASLEMAR PENSAMIENTO-DUARTE, Agency Nos. A208-902-918 A208-902-917 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and EATON,*** Judge. * 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). *** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Saidy Iveth Pensamiento-Duarte,1 a native and citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After making an adverse credibility determination, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Pensamiento’s subsequent appeal. Pensamiento now petitions for review, challenging the adverse credibility determination, and arguing that she experienced “physical and mental abuse amounting to torture . . . [which establishes] both past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. 1. We review adverse credibility determinations under a substantial evidence standard. See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014). We review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s analysis and adds its own reasoning. See, e.g., Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. Pensamiento’s testimony before the IJ was inconsistent with statements she made during her asylum interview and in her declaration. When testifying about her escape attempts from her abusive domestic partner, she stated that she tried to escape twice, even though, at her asylum 1 Pensamiento’s minor daughter is a derivative beneficiary of Pensamiento’s asylum application. 2 interview, she had claimed that she tried to escape five times. She was unable to provide a consistent and plausible timeline as to her pregnancy and childbirth, her state of consciousness, the alleged injuries she suffered, and her eventual escape. She admitted that she exaggerated her account because she did not want to be deported and said that she was willing to make false statements to prevent her deportation. Based on these inconsistencies and admissions, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. The inconsistencies in Pensamiento’s testimony concerned the nature, extent, and cause of the persecution that she claimed warranted relief. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the BIA properly affirmed the adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). 2. Pensamiento thus could not establish, by credible testimony, the requisite subjective, well-founded fear of future persecution—or a history of past persecution—necessary ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals