FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOFIA SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, No. 08-70987
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-799-361
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sofia Santiago-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding
because Santiago-Ramirez’s testimony was inconsistent with the letter she
submitted from Dennis and Flory Vander Zyl concerning the reason the gang
harassed and mistreated her. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Pal v.
INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of
credible testimony, Santiago-Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction over Santiago-Ramirez’ CAT claim because she did not
exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70987