Yeniley Ramos Cruz v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YENILEY DARIELA RAMOS CRUZ; No. 19-72191 EMELY DARIELA HERNANDEZ RAMOS, Agency Nos. A209-386-562 A209-386-563 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge. Yeniley Ramos Cruz and her daughter, both natives and citizens of * 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 Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 1 Honduras, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Ramos Cruz contends that her former partner, a member of the Mara-18 gang in Honduras, beat her, repeatedly raped her, and threatened to kill her when she left the relationship, prompting her to flee Honduras with her daughter. The IJ found her testimony not to be credible, and the BIA upheld that adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, in applying the substantial evidence standard, “[w]e reverse the BIA’s decision only if the petitioner’s evidence was ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that [she] was not credible’” (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003))). Specifically, the record supports the agency’s finding that Ramos Cruz was not credible based on inconsistencies between her testimony and the documents submitted in support of her asylum application as to when she was assaulted, when she reported the assault to the police, whether she 1 Because Ramos Cruz’s daughter’s application is a derivative one and alleges no claims independent of her mother’s, this disposition refers to Ramos Cruz’s petition in the singular for simplicity. 2 returned to her former partner’s home after the assault, and whether she saw or spoke to her former partner after the assault. Ramos Cruz argues that the inconsistencies the agency relied on were too minor to support an adverse credibility determination because her overall story is consistent. But because Ramos Cruz’s application was filed after May 11, 2005, it is governed by the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, which authorizes an IJ to base an adverse credibility determination on inconsistent statements without regard to whether they go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim. Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th ...

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