Teresa Martinez-Ledesma v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 538 F. App'x 806 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA MARTINEZ-LEDESMA, No. 12-70033
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-571-031
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Martinez-Ledesma, 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 applications for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) and (2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the numerous inconsistencies between Martinez-Ledesma’s testimony,
her witness’s testimony, and the record evidence, including discrepancies
regarding her initial entry and the time periods in which she was abused. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B)-(C); see also Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”).
Martinez-Ledesma’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez-Ledesma’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-70033