Coralia Cornejo v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 3 2021
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CORALIA DEL CARMEN CORNEJO, No. 19-72929
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-166-778
v.
ORDER
ROBERT M. WILKINSON,
Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed November 3, 2020 (Docket Entry
No. 34), is amended as follows:
1. On page 1, update caption: Replace “William P. Barr, Attorney General”
with “Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General”
2. On page 2, first paragraph, line 1: Remove “at least one basis for.”
Substantial evidence supports at least one basis for the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination.
with
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
3. On page 2, first paragraph, second sentence: Remove second
parenthetical.
See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that
we must uphold an adverse credibility finding if substantial evidence
supports even one ground relied upon).
with
See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).
With the foregoing amendments to the memorandum disposition,
Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Docket Entry No. 35) is DENIED.
No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case.
2
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 3 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORALIA DEL CARMEN CORNEJO, No. 19-72929
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-166-778
v. AMENDED
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON,
Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 26, 2020
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Coralia Del Carmen Cornejo petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). Cornejo’s testimony was
inconsistent with declarations submitted by her mother and brother. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that discrepancies
between petitioner’s testimony, declaration, and letter of membership substantially
supported an adverse credibility finding). The inconsistency is not trivial: whether
and when Cornejo and her mother fled their home relates directly to the threats by
gang members. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)
(holding that inconsistencies relating to “the events leading up to [petitioner’s]
departure and the number of times he was arrested” substantiated an adverse
credibility determination), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). Absent credible
testimony, Cornejo’s asylum and withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We need not reach Cornejo’s other
arguments.
PETITION DENIED.
2