Ruth Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Jeffrey Rosen


FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 15 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUTH X. ASCENCIO-RODRIGUEZ; No. 18-73331 JONATHAN S. RODRIGUEZ- ASCENCIO; EDUARDO A. Agency Nos. A208-891-727 RODRIGUEZ-ASCENCIO, A208-891-728 A208-891-729 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 13, 2021** San Francisco, California * 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). Before: BYBEE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge. Petitioner Ruth X. Ascencio-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her and her two minor sons’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. We review “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are also reviewed for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the substantial evidence standard, an agency determination must be upheld “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 *** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 (1992)). “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for clear error and ‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’ we ‘look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.’” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ based its conclusion on a number of inconsistencies between Petitioner’s testimony at her individual hearing and other record evidence. For example, Petitioner stated during her hearing that, in October 2015, a gang member held one of her sons outside a grocery store and would not let go of him. But in her written application, she claimed that the October 2015 incident involved gang members coming to her home and holding a gun to her head. Petitioner’s failure to mention the harm to her son—who is a rider to her asylum ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals