Vasquez

facts would have made her case for asylum a “more compelling story of

persecution than the initial application.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927

(9th Cir. 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d

1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016)). The agency reasonably concluded that Vasquez’s

initial explanation for the omission—that she forgot to mention it—was not

24-2397 plausible given the alleged severity and duration of the abuse. And it reasonably

declined to credit Vasquez’s alternative explanation—that she was not aware until

after she had filed her first asylum application that abuse by her former partner

would support her asylum claim—because Vasquez failed to reconcile her

contradictory explanations for the omission.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that there were

additional inconsistencies between Vasquez’s declarations and testimony,

particularly with respect to the alleged robberies she experienced in Peru, the

circumstances surrounding her decision to leave her home and stay with a friend,

and the nature of her former partner’s conviction for an unrelated crime. And…