Maria Islas-Espinosa v. Loretta E. Lynch

Good Law
668 F. App'x 327
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 201614-72698California252 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Maria Cristina Islas-Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies both within Islas-Espinosa’s testimony, and between her testimony and record evidence, as to her medical records from 1989 and 2000. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Islas-Espinosa’s explanations for these contradictions do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Islas-Espinosa’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.