Maribel Orozco Baez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIBEL OROZCO BAEZ; HENRRY No. 18-70124
ANTONIO GONZALEZ OROZCO;
HECTOR FABIAN GONZALEZ Agency Nos. A208-596-370
OROZCO, A208-596-371
A208-596-372
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: COLE,*** GOULD, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maribel Orozco Baez (“Orozco”), a native and citizen of Mexico, and her
*
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 R. Guy Cole, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
sons petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) adverse credibility finding and
denial of their post-REAL ID Act applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The IJ found Orozco not credible because her testimony was
inconsistent with her husband’s with respect to events central to her claims for
relief, particularly “critical details of [her husband’s] alleged beatings by criminals,
including whether and where the beatings took place and whether [Orozco]
witnessed [them].” For example, the IJ identified discrepancies in testimony
regarding a beating that allegedly occurred in April 2015, with Orozco testifying
that she witnessed the beating happen near the carport of her home and her
husband testifying that the beating did not happen at the property. The IJ also
found Orozco’s husband’s testimony “vague and evasive,” “nonresponsive,”
“internally inconsistent,” “lack[ing] detail,” and punctuated with several “long
pauses.” See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying REAL ID
Act, and concluding record supported the agency’s credibility determination based
on petitioner’s evasive testimony and non-responsive demeanor). Substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which the BIA
affirmed. In finding Orozco not credible, the IJ offered “specific cogent” reasons
and based his determination on the “totality of circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 11582
(“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of
fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency of [the applicant’s]
statements with other evidence of record . . . .”); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).
Moreover, Orozco did not present any corroborating evidence that would
independently satisfy her evidentiary burden or rehabilitate her credibility. Copies
of her birth certificate, passport, voting credentials, marriage certificate, and
documentation of her husband’s service in the Mexican military only substantiate
undisputed facts.
Accordingly, Orozco failed to establish that “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled” to disagree with the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. Orozco contends that the IJ failed to provide her an opportunity to
explain the inconsistencies. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“Aliens are afforded the opportunity to explain inconsistencies within their own
personal testimony because the true story may get lost in translation.” (citations
omitted)). In fact, the IJ granted Orozco an opportunity to file a brief explaining
the inconsistencies, which she did on September 15, 2016. A reasonable
opportunity to explain any perceived inconsistencies that are the bases of a denial
of asylum may take the form of supplemental briefing. See Mendoza Manimbao v.
3
Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, in her brief Orozco
failed to offer a reasonable and plausible explanation for the apparent
inconsistencies and argued only that her husband’s testimony should be given
limited weight because of his “lack of education and sophistication.”
3. Because Orozco was deemed not credible, she was not eligible for
asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). And because
she was not eligible for asylum, Orozco failed to meet the more stringent standard
for withholding of removal. See Pedro-Mateo v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish
eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate
eligibility for withholding of deportation.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
4